# 2014 On Track To Be Hottest Year On Record



## RollingThunder (Sep 19, 2014)

New scientific evidence, once again, exposes the delusional, ideologically motivated claims of the AGW deniers that the Earth is not still warming (or, even more crazy, "_cooling_") for the fraudulent nonsense that they are.

*2014 on Track to be Hottest Year on Record*
Climate Central
By Andrea Thompson
September 18th, 2014
(excerpts)
*Just days after NASA data showed that August 2014 was the warmest August on record, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration confirmed the ranking and raised the ante: There’s a good chance 2014 could become the warmest year on record.



Temperature departures around the world for the period from January-August 2014, which ranks as the 3rd warmest such period on record. Credit: NOAA

“If we continue a consistent departure from average for the rest of 2014, we will edge out 2010 as the warmest year on record,” said Jake Crouch, a climatologist with NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, during a press briefing Thursday. Specifically, if each of the remaining months of the year ranks among the top five warmest, 2014 will take the top spot, he said. The news may come as a surprise to those living in the eastern portion of the U.S., which has seen a relatively cool year so far, with a frigid winter followed by a near-average summer (which seemed extremely mild compared to recent steamy summers). But the global picture shows that the East was “pretty much the only land area in the globe that had cooler-than-average temperatures,” Crouch said. (The western U.S., on the other hand, has been baking.)*

*For the year-to-date, the globe has measured 1.22°F above the 20th century average of 57.3°F, which makes January-August 2014 the third warmest such period since records began in 1880. The record-hot August marks the 38th consecutive August and the 354th consecutive month with a global average temperature above the 20th century average, according to the NCDC. Of the five warmest years on record (2010, 2005, 1998, 2013, and 2003, in that order), only 2013 and 2014 didn’t start with a mature El Nino, according to NOAA. Of the top 10 warmest years on record, 1998 is the only year that didn’t occur in the 21st century, showing how much global temperatures have risen due to the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.




The top 10 warmest years on record globally, according to NOAA data.
*


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 19, 2014)

This year is pretty much 1998 or 2010 but with a developing nino at the end.


Doesn't mean that we've warmed overall...Just that the pattern promotes a new record.


----------



## S.J. (Sep 19, 2014)

Give it up, there is no global warming.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 19, 2014)

More bold colored shouting from the board's own histrionic, handwaving wacko...just what we needed.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 19, 2014)

SSDD said:


> More bold colored shouting from the board's own histrionic, handwaving wacko...just what we needed.


 right?  Like this board doesn't have enough threads to tell the lie.  Here comes another one.  Fictitious reporting. Hah!!!!


----------



## mamooth (Sep 19, 2014)

Hilarious. The poor desperate deniers have devolved into all-conspiracy all-the-time nutters. They literally have no other arguments beyond TheGreatSocialistConspiracy.

That's why the whole planet is laughing at them. Get used to your constant humiliation, deniers. After all, you've worked hard to earn all the ridicule you're getting.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 19, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Hilarious. The poor desperate deniers have devolved into all-conspiracy all-the-time nutters. They literally have no other arguments beyond TheGreatSocialistConspiracy.
> 
> That's why the whole planet is laughing at them. Get used to your constant humiliation, deniers. After all, you've worked hard to earn all the ridicule you're getting.


 Dude, you know you crack us up right?  The " WHOLE" planet?  the Whole, okay, I want to see the list of names from around the Whole planet that agrees with you what is that like 3 billion names!  Just like Jiminey, can't control your reactions, such a typical response. limited control of emotions, response driven by anger and lost integrity.


----------



## Crick (Sep 19, 2014)

Besides being moot and meaningless, none of that changes the fact that the vast majority of people DO consider you pathetic fringe whack jobs.


----------



## martybegan (Sep 19, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Hilarious. The poor desperate deniers have devolved into all-conspiracy all-the-time nutters. They literally have no other arguments beyond TheGreatSocialistConspiracy.
> 
> That's why the whole planet is laughing at them. Get used to your constant humiliation, deniers. After all, you've worked hard to earn all the ridicule you're getting.



its funny watching someone defend a chart when they have no idea where it comes from, and take on faith the validity of the data behind it.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 19, 2014)

I'll give the warmers a fair shot at number one this year. The models takes the 3.4 sea surface temperatures to .7 to 1.2c above avg by the end of the year.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 19, 2014)

I was just looking over the Giss data set...I thought 2010 was .65? It shows .67 for 2010 now.

WTF?


----------



## Zander (Sep 19, 2014)

Whoopdy fucking doo.....


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 19, 2014)

Matthew said:


> I was just looking over the Giss data set...I thought 2010 was .65? It shows .67 for 2010 now.
> 
> WTF?



Revising ever upward! 

These quacks are going to fall big time...  They have revised the last five months of this year in the GISS data base upward by 0.8 deg C... IN JUST FIVE MONTHS!  fucking morons..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 19, 2014)

Matthew said:


> I was just looking over the Giss data set...I thought 2010 was .65? It shows .67 for 2010 now.
> 
> WTF?



All the while the CRN data says we have cooled 0.6 deg C over the same time period...

I will have to admit that the adjustment crew has got some serious sized gonads to do this much adjustment to records so fast.. Its almost as if they could care less that they could be caught lieing and committing fraud...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 19, 2014)

Then i realize his source is Climate Depot...  a left wing hack site....


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 20, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Revising ever upward! These quacks are going to fall big time...  They have revised the last five months of this year in the GISS data base upward by 0.8 deg C... IN JUST FIVE MONTHS!  fucking morons..





Billy_Bob said:


> All the while the CRN data says we have cooled 0.6 deg C over the same time period...I will have to admit that the adjustment crew has got some serious sized gonads to do this much adjustment to records so fast.. Its almost as if they could care less that they could be caught lieing and committing fraud...



Your usual raging insanity, BoobyBobNutJob. Try to improve! Work in even more crackpot conspiracy theory nonsense if you can. LOLOLOL.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 20, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Revising ever upward! These quacks are going to fall big time...  They have revised the last five months of this year in the GISS data base upward by 0.8 deg C... IN JUST FIVE MONTHS!  fucking morons..
> ...



I can always tell when I have won a debate.  When your opponent descends to personal attacks, they have no facts with which to fight, so they attack the person..

You are not a scientist, You sir, are a clueless moron.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 20, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> New scientific evidence, once again, exposes the delusional, ideologically motivated claims of the AGW deniers that the Earth is not still warming (or, even more crazy, "_cooling_") for the fraudulent nonsense that they are.
> 
> *2014 on Track to be Hottest Year on Record*
> Climate Central
> ...


 
Should I mention that weather is not climate?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 20, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > New scientific evidence, once again, exposes the delusional, ideologically motivated claims of the AGW deniers that the Earth is not still warming (or, even more crazy, "_cooling_") for the fraudulent nonsense that they are.
> ...



Actually , long term weather trends = Climate.

As to their claim to warmest years, its bullshit!  compare that to the paleo record and you find that its nothing more than fearmongering and well with in the earths cyclical norms..


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 20, 2014)

Meanwhile in reality, the Antartic is expanding ice  on a massive scale and the upper Midwest has been cool all year long.  Ozone layer has returned to near normal.


----------



## boedicca (Sep 20, 2014)

I wonder how many of the temperature gauges are on airport tarmacs....


----------



## Crick (Sep 20, 2014)

Actually, NCDC took it one step further: they've all been installed directly in the tailcones of jetliner engines.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 20, 2014)

saveliberty said:


> Meanwhile in reality, the Antartic is expanding ice  on a massive scale and the upper Midwest has been cool all year long.  Ozone layer has returned to near normal.



REALITY....  IS SOMETHING ALARMISTS AVOID AT ALL COSTS...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 20, 2014)

boedicca said:


> I wonder how many of the temperature gauges are on airport tarmacs....



Here is your answer...

Home (http://www.surfacestations.org/)

to dam many of them...


----------



## Crick (Sep 21, 2014)

Are you unaware that damn is spelled d-a-m-n or are you being euphemistic?

Did it ever bother you that Watts collected all those photographs and narratives of HCN station sites and concluded that the temperature trends had been driven upwards, but he never jwent to the trouble of looking at the temperature readings to see if that had actually been the case?  Now he obviously lacked (and lacks) the technical know-how to do an analysis of that sort.  He lacks the technical know how to do pretty much any sort of analysis.  But he seems to have no shortage of volunteers.  Why did he leave it for NCDC to actually work the numbers?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 21, 2014)

boedicca said:


> I wonder how many of the temperature gauges are on airport tarmacs....



Find out here;

Berkeley Earth


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 23, 2014)

saveliberty said:


> Meanwhile in reality, the Antartic is expanding ice  on a massive scale and the upper Midwest has been cool all year long.  Ozone layer has returned to near normal.



Moron!

Arctic ice is at its sixth lowest level on record and there's less ice than last year. The eight lowest ice extents on record have all been recorded in the last eight years.

Almost everywhere on the planet was warmer than some portions of the American east coast and midwest this year. California, for example, just had its hottest January through August period on record, beating the old record by 1.1 degrees F. Globally, 2014 is shaping up to be the new 'warmest year on record'. Globally, from June through August of 2014, the average temperature of our planet was 62.78 degrees Fahrenheit -- 1.28 degrees higher than the 20th century average, according to a report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That makes it the warmest summer since record keeping began in 1880.

Any recovery of the ozone layer is a result of the nations of the world responding effectively to the scientific evidence of a rapidly thinning ozone layer by banning the production and sales of the chlorofluorocarbons that were destroying the ozone. A good example of the kind of international cooperative efforts that the world needs to take to effectively combat climate change.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 23, 2014)

It looks like the denier cultists can't stand to face the truth about our rapidly warming planet.

2014 is going to be the hottest year on record which will mean that 14 of the 15 hottest years on record have happened since the beginning of this century.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 23, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> It looks like the denier cultists can't stand to face the truth about our rapidly warming planet.
> 
> 2014 is going to be the hottest year on record which will mean that 14 of the 15 hottest years on record have happened since the beginning of this century.


 
Yeah, warmer is much worse than colder.

It would be awful to live during a climatic optimum.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 23, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > It looks like the denier cultists can't stand to face the truth about our rapidly warming planet.
> ...


Only a total retard could imagine that the current abrupt warming trend, which is predicted to raise temperatures by as much as 8 degrees F. by the end of the century, is taking the planet into "_a climatic optimum_".

Crawl back into your hole, troll.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 23, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> It looks like the denier cultists can't stand to face the truth about our rapidly warming planet.
> 
> 2014 is going to be the hottest year on record which will mean that 14 of the 15 hottest years on record have happened since the beginning of this century.




fAiL s0n......the NOAA just finished a study!!!

"naturally occurring cycles" >>>  West Coast warming linked to naturally occurring changes - LA Times

Your BS is pwned Einstein!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 23, 2014)

[URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/gigantor11.gif.html']
	
[/URL]

[URL='http://[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/gigantor9-1.gif.html][IMG]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/gigantor9-1.gif[/IMG][/URL]'][URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/gigantor9-1.gif.html']
	
[/URL]



[URL='http://[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/gigantor6.gif.html][IMG]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/gigantor6.gif[/IMG][/URL]'][URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/gigantor6.gif.html]
	
[/URL][/URL][/URL]


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 23, 2014)




----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 23, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 
Only a total moron would believe the fake climate models that predict 8 F of warming.
Fuck off, idiot.


----------



## S.J. (Sep 23, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


Yeah, we see how accurate your alarmist predictions have been so far.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 24, 2014)

Crick said:


> Are you unaware that damn is spelled d-a-m-n or are you being euphemistic?



Reduced to spell checking...did it feel good to catch one?  Here, let me thro you a bone.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 24, 2014)

The warmest years on record, until this year, have been El Nino years. This year is ENSO neutral. When we get another El Nino year, all the records are going to fall. 

Not that it matters to the peanut gallery at all. They will first deny anything at all, unless it is their house that gets hit with an extreme of weather. Then they will blame the scientists for not warning them.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 24, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> The warmest years on record, until this year, have been El Nino years. This year is ENSO neutral. When we get another El Nino year, all the records are going to fall.
> 
> Not that it matters to the peanut gallery at all. They will first deny anything at all, unless it is their house that gets hit with an extreme of weather. Then they will blame the scientists for not warning them.


 
It's obvious that if we spend trillions on unreliable green energy, we will suffer no more extreme weather. LOL!

Do you realize how idiotic you sound?


----------



## chikenwing (Sep 24, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> New scientific evidence, once again, exposes the delusional, ideologically motivated claims of the AGW deniers that the Earth is not still warming (or, even more crazy, "_cooling_") for the fraudulent nonsense that they are.
> 
> *2014 on Track to be Hottest Year on Record*
> Climate Central
> ...


Not in the northeast its not,nor has been,another long cold winter is predicted,long cold spring cold summer,but hey we are doomed to melt,someday


----------



## jc456 (Sep 24, 2014)

chikenwing said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > New scientific evidence, once again, exposes the delusional, ideologically motivated claims of the AGW deniers that the Earth is not still warming (or, even more crazy, "_cooling_") for the fraudulent nonsense that they are.
> ...


you like me live in the part of the northern hemisphere that doesn't count.  Ask them, we only make up 2% of the globe therefore we are irrelavant.

We in Chicago have been at least 20 degrees under normal at times during this summer. 20 degrees and that is irrelavant.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 24, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> *2014 on Track to be Hottest Year on Record
> “If we continue a consistent departure from average for the rest of 2014, we will edge out 2010 as the warmest year on record,” said Jake Crouch, a climatologist with NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, during a press briefing Thursday. Specifically, if each of the remaining months of the year ranks among the top five warmest, 2014 will take the top spot, he said. The news may come as a surprise to those living in the eastern portion of the U.S., which has seen a relatively cool year so far, with a frigid winter followed by a near-average summer (which seemed extremely mild compared to recent steamy summers). But the global picture shows that the East was “pretty much the only land area in the globe that had cooler-than-average temperatures,” Crouch said. (The western U.S., on the other hand, has been baking.)*
> 
> *For the year-to-date, the globe has measured 1.22°F above the 20th century average of 57.3°F, which makes January-August 2014 the third warmest such period since records began in 1880. The record-hot August marks the 38th consecutive August and the 354th consecutive month with a global average temperature above the 20th century average, according to the NCDC. Of the five warmest years on record (2010, 2005, 1998, 2013, and 2003, in that order), only 2013 and 2014 didn’t start with a mature El Nino, according to NOAA. Of the top 10 warmest years on record, 1998 is the only year that didn’t occur in the 21st century, showing how much global temperatures have risen due to the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
> ...





chikenwing said:


> Not in the northeast its not,nor has been,another long cold winter is predicted,long cold spring cold summer,but hey we are doomed to melt,someday





jc456 said:


> you like me live in the part of the northern hemisphere that doesn't count.  Ask them, we only make up 2% of the globe therefore we are irrelavant.
> We in Chicago have been at least 20 degrees under normal at times during this summer. 20 degrees and that is irrelavant.



And up pops another new ignorant rightwingnut and an old rightwingnut troll, neither of whom can comprehend the fact that the weather in their backyard does not reflect what is happening all around the planet. I, and others, have repeatedly pointed out to these easily duped deniers that the entire USA only covers about 2% of the Earth's surface and the cooler parts of America this year were only a fraction of the country, meanwhile most of the rest of the planet was experiencing above average temperatures.

As the scientist quoted in the OP said:
*The news may come as a surprise to those living in the eastern portion of the U.S., which has seen a relatively cool year so far, with a frigid winter followed by a near-average summer (which seemed extremely mild compared to recent steamy summers). But the global picture shows that the East was “pretty much the only land area in the globe that had cooler-than-average temperatures,” Crouch said. (The western U.S., on the other hand, has been baking.)*


----------



## jc456 (Sep 24, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 24, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > chikenwing said:
> ...


Is that the sound you make, JustCrazy, when your clueless drivel gets debunked again?


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 24, 2014)

2014 is on track to be the next new 'hottest year on record' but the denier cultists bleat about how cold it is in their backyard, as if that 'disproved' the plain fact that the Earth is heating up as the extra CO2 retains more of the sun's energy. Their seeming inability to recognize the difference between local weather and global climate trends is either the calculated denial of the facts by paid trolls, or the befuddled incomprehension of reality by brainwashed rightwingnut retards.

I've already mentioned, by way of giving some balance to their citing some cooler areas of (just) the USA, that California just had a record breaking hot first eight months of the year, exceeding the old record for that period by over one full degree F., and that LA has just recently been going through a pretty strong heatwave. Here's some more recent contrasting weather, just here in the US, that the deluded deniers HAVE to ignore or their propaganda meme will collapse and their heads will explode.

*Punishing heat wave scorches central, southern U.S.*
USA TODAY
Doyle Rice
August 25, 2014
(excerpts)
*The worst heat wave of the summer continues to scorch much of the central and southern U.S. this week, with high temperatures topping 100 degrees from Texas to Kansas. Heat index values, which factor in the humidity, are as high as 110 degrees Monday, the National Weather Service warns. Tuesday should be equally dreadful. The weather service has posted heat advisories and excessive heat warnings across the region through Tuesday. The entire state of Missouri, along with much of Illinois and Arkansas, is under a heat advisory. In St. Louis city, eight people have suffered a heat-related illness and four have been admitted to local hospitals. "Feels like summer, we've been spoiled," golfer Mike McKee said Sunday in St. Louis, speaking about the relatively cool summer before this heat wave. Monday will likely be Chicago's hottest day of the summer. The heat should also pay a brief visit to the Northeast by midweek. High temperatures will reach well into the 80s across New England and the central Appalachians, and can reach near the 90-degree mark along the Interstate 95 corridor during the middle of this week, reports AccuWeather meteorologist Alex Sosnowski. Temperatures in this range are between 5 and 10 degrees above average for late August.*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 24, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Moron!
> 
> Arctic ice is at its sixth lowest level on record and there's less ice than last year. The eight lowest ice extents on record have all been recorded in the last eight years.
> 
> ...



Actually the moron is you.  All of your so called facts are from ADJUSTED RECORDS.  Now why would an alarmist troll want to use adjusted records?  






This is why. The temperatures are falling..  and the only way to keep the alarmist meme going is to LIE!

Source


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 24, 2014)

jc456 said:


> you like me live in the part of the northern hemisphere that doesn't count.  Ask them, we only make up 2% of the globe therefore we are irrelavant.
> 
> We in Chicago have been at least 20 degrees under normal at times during this summer. 20 degrees and that is irrelavant.



Well lets take a look at the global temps shall we....





Were Cooling not getting hotter...  Funnier still its not going to be any where near record breaking...  Love the alarmist drivel in this thread..

woodfortreesgraphing


----------



## elektra (Sep 24, 2014)

Did all you google linking, scientific study quoting, mental giants miss something? It is only hottest compared to a certain period of time, why is that, because all the nuts got is deceit and lies.

(with respect to a 1981-2010 base period)


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 24, 2014)

elektra said:


> Did all you google linking, scientific study quoting, mental giants miss something? It is only hottest compared to a certain period of time, why is that, because all the nuts got is deceit and lies.
> 
> (with respect to a 1981-2010 base period)


Actually, only one other denier cult retard besides you was mentally impaired enough to think that the 'record', in which 2014 is the 'warmest year on record', referred to the reference dates on the first graph, which was showing the global temperature deviation from the average temperatures over a recent period of time. Only utter idiots who were completely ignorant about this whole subject could possibly assume that. Everybody with more than two brain cells to rub together knows the instrumental temperature 'record' being referred to in that article goes back to about 1880. Of course, climate scientists have assembled a number of proxie temperature records covering the entire Holocene. They all show unusually rapid warming starting in the twentieth century.


----------



## elektra (Sep 25, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Did all you google linking, scientific study quoting, mental giants miss something? It is only hottest compared to a certain period of time, why is that, because all the nuts got is deceit and lies.
> ...


No, with respect to a 1981-2010 base period, your an idiot.

Nice try at a thread though, most people don't catch the little stuff so don't feel too bad.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 25, 2014)

elektra said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


It is so funny the way utter retards cling to their wacko delusions no matter how clearly you explain things to them. And, of course, this nitwit didn't even bother to read the whole article, which specifically states: "*For the year-to-date, the globe has measured 1.22°F above the 20th century average of 57.3°F, which makes January-August 2014 the third warmest such period since records began in 1880.*"

*Thermometer-Based Temperature Trends
NOAA
 (Global and Hemispheric)
The earliest records of temperature measured by thermometers are from western Europe beginning in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. The network of temperature collection stations increased over time and by the early 20th century, records were being collected in almost all regions, except for polar regions where collections began in the 1940s and 1950s.​A set of temperature records from over 7,000 stations around the world has been compiled by the NOAA National Climate Data Center to create the Global Historical Climatology Network - GHCN (GHCN Version 2 data set; Peterson and Vose 1997). About 1,000 of these records extend back into the 19th century. 

Two widely recognized research programs have used the available instrumental data to reconstruct global surface air temperature trends from the late 1800's through today. Both use the same land-based thermometer measurement records from the GHCN, but the records contain some differences. These differences are due to different approaches to spatial averaging, the use and treatment of sea surface temperature data (from ship observations), and the handling of the influence of changes in land-cover (i.e., increases in urbanization). However, both show the same basic trends over the last 100 years. The units shown are departures from the 1960 - 1990 period. For larger viewing version of these graphed temperature records, please click here or on the graph. To view animations of mapped CRU-UK global temperatures, click here. *


----------



## elektra (Sep 25, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


Sure, whatever you say, why all the links to crap. Why not just post the data, names of the stations with the temperature for the period you claim. I bet you can not post something so simple. Just the temperatures.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 25, 2014)

elektra said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


Your idiotic drivel got debunked by the facts *again*, you moronic nutjob, just like it *always* has every time you post your really insane claims ("_no drought in California_", for example), and now you're just spewing meaningless gibberish that has no bearing on the scientific facts about rising temperatures. I reported on the scientific statements about how hot 2014 has been. I happen to trust the reports of the world scientific community and groups like NOAA, NASA, NSIDC, PIOMAS and others around the world. Since you're obviously very insane, you are almost certainly a conspiracy theory wacko, so you probably don't trust the scientists at all. Not my problem! If you want an education in how the scientists reach their conclusions about AGW and the data and evidence they use, look it up yourself. Again, not my problem! I'm not the one who's too bonkers to believe the collective judgement of the world's experts.


----------



## elektra (Sep 25, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


Your OP references a time period, as you posted. Run backwards all you like.

Further, you show yourself to be either a liar or so ignorant that you can not understand or reply to my thread, which is not, "no drought in california", it is "California not suffering, drought?" To very different titles with different meanings, which your lack of understanding certainly shows how you missed, "with reference to 1981-1999".

Your mouth certainly shows your lack of intelligence, lots of anger and insults, at that your imagination flaming someone is about as impressive as the OP.

Now instead of showing us colored drawings, which is not science, post the actual temperatures so we can see if you are right or wrong.

Should be easy, post the temperatures.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 25, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> 2014 is on track to be the next new 'hottest year on record' but the denier cultists bleat about how cold it is in their backyard, as if that 'disproved' the plain fact that the Earth is heating up as the extra CO2 retains more of the sun's energy. Their seeming inability to recognize the difference between local weather and global climate trends is either the calculated denial of the facts by paid trolls, or the befuddled incomprehension of reality by brainwashed rightwingnut retards.
> 
> I've already mentioned, by way of giving some balance to their citing some cooler areas of (just) the USA, that California just had a record breaking hot first eight months of the year, exceeding the old record for that period by over one full degree F., and that LA has just recently been going through a pretty strong heatwave. Here's some more recent contrasting weather, just here in the US, that the deluded deniers HAVE to ignore or their propaganda meme will collapse and their heads will explode.
> 
> ...





It all comes from the same 'hair on fire' brigade.....

*1.  “Ron Arnold, a former executive director of the Sierra Club and founder of the unfairly maligned ‘Wise Use’ movement, has spent the last twenty years researching the cooperation among foundations, ENGOs, individual activists, and activist federal employees….*

*Arnold proves that thousands of activist members of advocacy groups are employed by federal agencies in positions that give them opportunity to exercise agenda-driven “undue influence” over goods-production decisions applied in rural areas. *

*Put plainly, by the early 1990s, according to Arnold, the federal agencies- the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management- and many equivalent state agencies were riddled with activists.” *
*Nickson, “Eco-Fascists,” p.164.*


----------



## mamooth (Sep 25, 2014)

This latest episode of "Non-sequitur Theatre" has been brought to you courtesy of PolticalChic.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 25, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > 2014 is on track to be the next new 'hottest year on record' but the denier cultists bleat about how cold it is in their backyard, as if that 'disproved' the plain fact that the Earth is heating up as the extra CO2 retains more of the sun's energy. Their seeming inability to recognize the difference between local weather and global climate trends is either the calculated denial of the facts by paid trolls, or the befuddled incomprehension of reality by brainwashed rightwingnut retards.
> ...



More rightwingnuttery from corporate stooges who are insane enough to believe that people who are concerned about the damage to the Earth's ecology that unrestrained capitalism is doing, are somehow "_fascists_".


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 25, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...




".... corporate stooges ...."


"thousands of activist members of advocacy groups are employed by federal agencies in positions that give them opportunity to exercise agenda-driven “undue influence” over goods-production decisions applied in rural areas."

See any ".... corporate stooges ...." in there, you dunce?


----------



## elektra (Sep 25, 2014)

Post the temperature data, not colored propaganda drawings. 

Why such a lack of information that is relevant.

What was the temperature at each reporting station. Year by year.

Should be simple. These are simple facts easily read, so where are the actual temperatures from the individual stations.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 25, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


LOLOL.....yeah, I see you stooging for the corps like the brainwashed moron you are, and I see the author and the publishers of that idiotic twaddle you posted also stooging for the corporate anti-environmental, anti-regulatory agenda.


----------



## Vigilante (Sep 25, 2014)

January 2014 one of the coldest on record

Summer 2014 is the coldest in a decade New York Post

NOAA Winter 2013-2014 Among Coldest on Record in Midwest Driest Warmest in Southwest - weather.com

Global Warming Alert 2014 coldest year on record Poor Richard s News

How's a person to know who is telling the truth?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 25, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





I asked you a question....

"thousands of activist members of advocacy groups are employed by federal agencies in positions that give them opportunity to exercise agenda-driven “undue influence” over goods-production decisions applied in rural areas."

See any ".... corporate stooges ...." in there, you dunce?


----------



## elektra (Sep 25, 2014)

Another post by rollingblunder but no temperatures posted?


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 25, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > LOLOL.....yeah, I see you stooging for the corps like the brainwashed moron you are, and I see the author and the publishers of that idiotic twaddle you posted also stooging for the corporate anti-environmental, anti-regulatory agenda.
> ...



LOLOL......I already answered your question, stooge.


----------



## elektra (Sep 25, 2014)

Rollingblunder again fails to post the facts.


----------



## Crick (Sep 25, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> "thousands of activist members of advocacy groups are employed by federal agencies in positions that give them opportunity to exercise agenda-driven “undue influence” over goods-production decisions applied in rural areas."



Here's a question for you: what percentage of ALL government employees do you believe have the capacity to exercise ANY influence, agenda-driven or not; undue or not?  1 in 10?  1 in 100?  The government is filled with hundreds of thousands of clerical worker bees and very, very, very few queens.  If you believe otherwise, you're either ignorant or paranoid.


----------



## elektra (Sep 25, 2014)

Crick said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > "thousands of activist members of advocacy groups are employed by federal agencies in positions that give them opportunity to exercise agenda-driven “undue influence” over goods-production decisions applied in rural areas."
> ...


That us better a question asked if those who follow Howard zinn, a government worker been who advocated that all in government could be activists within their perspective government jobs.

Crick, you know nothing of the liberal movement you a part of, liberalism could be Marxism but crick would never know, that is how shallow crick's thinking is.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 25, 2014)

elektra said:


> Rollingblunder again fails to post the facts.


You again fail to show any signs of intelligence.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 25, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> January 2014 one of the coldest on record
> 
> Summer 2014 is the coldest in a decade New York Post
> 
> ...



How to know a complete idiot. He posts about his back yard when we are talking global issues.


----------



## Vigilante (Sep 25, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > January 2014 one of the coldest on record
> ...



Yes, you are a fucking idiot, ......

The Number Of Volcanic Eruptions Is Increasing And That Could Lead To An Extremely Cold Winter Alternative


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 25, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



I posted the current temperatures in a graph showing cooling..  and the moron rants on...  If it were not for the need to teach others and expose others to the truth, I wouldn't even bother to respond to these idiots..


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 25, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> January 2014 one of the coldest on record



I'm reporting on the scientific evidence that 2014 will almost certainly be the next new 'warmest year on record' GLOBALLY, you deceitful troll. Your article is talking about ONLY one small area of Indiana. You are so lame!






Vigilante said:


> Summer 2014 is the coldest in a decade New York Post



ONLY talking about New York City, cretin.







Vigilante said:


> NOAA Winter 2013-2014 Among Coldest on Record in Midwest Driest Warmest in Southwest - weather.com



LOLOL.....it is right in the title, idiot, "coldest in Midwest" but "*WARMEST IN SOUTHWEST*". And ONLY in parts of the U.S., which you jingoistically seem to imagine is the whole world.






Vigilante said:


> Global Warming Alert 2014 coldest year on record Poor Richard s News




Nothing but desperate lies from rightwingnut central.






Vigilante said:


> How's a person to know who is telling the truth?



Well...in your case...you would have to first grow a brain...

Then...you would have to grasp the difference between 'local' and 'global'.

Then you might be able to grasp the fact that the first three articles were "telling the truth" about very small areas, not the planet. Your last article was total bullshit. You're either very retarded or a very deceitful troll.


----------



## boedicca (Sep 25, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Rollingblunder again fails to post the facts.
> ...




You really should get some professional help to deal with your PROJECTION issue.


----------



## Vigilante (Sep 25, 2014)

Perhaps you should dwell on the VOLCANOS in post #69!


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 25, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > How to know a complete idiot. He posts about his back yard when we are talking global issues.
> ...



No, you are the "_fucking idiot_", as you continually demonstrate.

What do imagine that an increase in volcanic eruptions has to do with the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting AGW or the fact that 2014 is shaping up to be the warmest year on record?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 25, 2014)

Old Moron just cant get his facts straight..






We are no where near a warm record...


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 25, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Moron just cant get his facts straight..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You freaking idiot! We're talking about 2014 being the warmest year on record GLOBALLY!!! The USA only covers about 2% of the Earth's surface.

Grow a brain, retard.


----------



## Vigilante (Sep 25, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



There is NO OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, it's assholes like you that keep yelling it, and have FALSE evidence! Such as the e-mails from *East Anglia!!!*


----------



## elektra (Sep 25, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > January 2014 one of the coldest on record
> ...


Like when old crock reported on glaciers old crock sees from old frock ' s house


----------



## elektra (Sep 25, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Old Moron just cant get his facts straight..
> ...


Post the data, so we can see the facts.


----------



## Vigilante (Sep 25, 2014)




----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 25, 2014)

Vigilante said:


>


Another cartoon brained moron posts more braindead drivel after his denier cult bullshit got debunked.


----------



## Vigilante (Sep 25, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...




I do believe I bitched slapped the knuckledragger, and hurt his feelings!


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 25, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Another cartoon brained moron posts more braindead drivel after his denier cult bullshit got debunked.
> ...


Nope. You just once again demonstrated what a complete retard you are. As usual.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 25, 2014)

elektra said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


We all know you're too retarded to understand scientific data anyway, but here you go....you're on your own from here, bozo....
THE U.S. HISTORICAL CLIMATOLOGY NETWORK MONTHLY TEMPERATURE DATA


----------



## Vigilante (Sep 25, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Yup, a confirmed BITCH SLAP!


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 25, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


Yeah, but to your own face, you poor retard.


----------



## Vigilante (Sep 25, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



A SECOND confirmation of the BITCH SLAP...must have been harder than I thought!


----------



## elektra (Sep 25, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> We all know you're too retarded to understand scientific data anyway, but here you go....you're on your own from here, bozo....
> THE U.S. HISTORICAL CLIMATOLOGY NETWORK MONTHLY TEMPERATURE DATA


From your link, RollingBlunder;
Not sure why you would give me all this great stuff when I simply asked for the temperature, but I guess I was wrong, RollingBlunder was being sarcastic and actually of the view, that the OP is the propaganda.

Thanks for clarifying things, RollingBlunder, and I know, your reply will be that I, "cherry picked", well you did give me a, "Cherry tree", with lots of low hanging fruit, and I barely began to pick, there is much more to quote.
THE U.S. HISTORICAL CLIMATOLOGY NETWORK MONTHLY TEMPERATURE DATA


> To that end, U.S. HCN temperature records have been “corrected”





> The HCN bias adjustments are discussed in the context of their effect on U.S. temperature trends and in terms of the differences between version 2 and its widely used predecessor (now termed HCN version 1).





> The actual subset of stations constituting the HCN has changed twice since 1987. By the mid-1990s, sta- tion closures and relocations had already forced a reevaluation of the composition of the U.S. HCN as well as the creation of additional composite stations. The reevaluation led to 52 station deletions and 54 additions,





> Each source contains “estimated” values and quality assurance (QA) flags;





> The process of removing systematic changes in the bias of a climate series is called homogenization, and the systematic artificial shifts in a series are frequently referred to as “inhomogeneities.” In the HCN, there are a number of causes behind inhomogeneities





> Bias caused by changes to the time of observation. The majority of the COOP Network observers (and also HCN) are volunteers who make observations at times that are more convenient than local midnight





> the gradual conversion to morning observation times in the United States during the past 50 years has artificially reduced the true tem- perature trend in the U.S. climate record





> To account for this time of observation bias (TOB) in the HCN version 2 monthly temperatures, the adjustment method described in Karl et al. (1986) was used.





> homogenized data are not
> useful for calculating regional trends because the
> homogenized series lack independence,





> comparing only HCN series, in large part because digital monthly COOP temperature data (and metadata) were more limited back in the 1980s





> station changes can cause either an artificial rise or drop in temperature





> . As a result, the overall effect of the MMTS instrument change at all affected sites is substantially less than both the Quayle et al. (1991) and Hubbard and    Lin    (2006)    estimates





> For HCN version 2 as a whole, the combined effect of all adjustments for documented and undocumented temperature changes is to increase the average U.S. trend    in    maximum    temperatures





> the most significant effect of the adjustments on maximum temperatures begins after 1985,


----------



## elektra (Sep 26, 2014)

The Science is settled?


----------



## Vigilante (Sep 26, 2014)




----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 26, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> We all know you're too retarded to understand scientific data anyway, but here you go....you're on your own from here, bozo....
> THE U.S. HISTORICAL CLIMATOLOGY NETWORK MONTHLY TEMPERATURE DATA



Proof positive that YOU are a clueless moron..

The data sets are in the Woodfortrees data base and are linked to the original source. You post a link that has no basis in reality as the link takes you to ADJUSTED TEMPERATURES and omits that the unadjusted numbers are available for comparison.  When your side is done knuckledraging the temps around why would they not be 3-5 deg F warmer... Ever upward...  you never bring them down to aline with well sited stations and reality. You always run up the temps to meet poorly sited stations and your agenda..

You really dont have a damn clue... just posting over and over the same talking points and trash...


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 26, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





No, you dodged the question because it skewers you.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 wrong!!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2014)

Crick said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > "thousands of activist members of advocacy groups are employed by federal agencies in positions that give them opportunity to exercise agenda-driven “undue influence” over goods-production decisions applied in rural areas."
> ...


 what a boob.  You don't know how authority works do you?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Rollingblunder again fails to post the facts.
> ...


 where are the temperature data sets


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > January 2014 one of the coldest on record
> ...


yep, it's part of the globe if you haven't looked lately.  LoSiNg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


RollingThunder said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


 
And still no data sets.  hmmm..LoSiNg


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 26, 2014)

elektra said:


> The Science is settled?



Even though scientific understanding is always being refined and expanded, the basic facts about what is happening now with the Earth's warming and climate changes are well understood by the scientists, so yes, in that regard, the "_science IS settled_"......far, far beyond your retarded comprehension, I'm afraid.

*WHAT 95% CERTAINTY OF WARMING MEANS TO SCIENTISTS*
Associated Press
By SETH BORENSTEIN
Sep. 24, 2013 
(excerpts)
*Top scientists from a variety of fields say they are about as certain that global warming is a real, man-made threat as they are that cigarettes kill. They are as sure about climate change as they are about the age of the universe. They say they are more certain about climate change than they are that vitamins make you healthy or that dioxin in Superfund sites is dangerous. They'll even put a number on how certain they are about climate change. But that number isn't 100 percent. It's 95 percent. And for some non-scientists, that's just not good enough. There's a mismatch between what scientists say about how certain they are and what the general public thinks the experts mean, specialists say. That is an issue because this week, scientists from around the world have gathered in Stockholm for a meeting of a U.N. panel on climate change, and they will probably release a report saying it is "extremely likely" — which they define in footnotes as 95 percent certain — that humans are mostly to blame for temperatures that have climbed since 1951. One climate scientist involved says the panel may even boost it in some places to "virtually certain" and 99 percent.

Some climate-change deniers have looked at 95 percent and scoffed. After all, most people wouldn't get on a plane that had only a 95 percent certainty of landing safely, risk experts say. But in science, 95 percent certainty is often considered the gold standard for certainty. "Uncertainty is inherent in every scientific judgment," said Johns Hopkins University epidemiologist Thomas Burke. "Will the sun come up in the morning?" Scientists know the answer is yes, but they can't really say so with 100 percent certainty because there are so many factors out there that are not quite understood or under control. George Gray, director of the Center for Risk Science and Public Health at George Washington University, said that demanding absolute proof on things such as climate doesn't make sense. "There's a group of people who seem to think that when scientists say they are uncertain, we shouldn't do anything," said Gray, who was chief scientist for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during the George W. Bush administration. "That's crazy. We're uncertain and we buy insurance."

With the U.N. panel about to weigh in on the effects of greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of oil, coal and gas, The Associated Press asked scientists who specialize in climate, physics, epidemiology, public health, statistics and risk just what in science is more certain than human-caused climate change, what is about the same, and what is less. They said gravity is a good example of something more certain than climate change. Climate change "is not as sure as if you drop a stone it will hit the Earth," Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer said. "It's not as certain, but it's close." Arizona State University physicist Lawrence Krauss said the 95 percent quoted for climate change is equivalent to the current certainty among physicists that the universe is 13.8 billion years old. The president of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone, and more than a dozen other scientists contacted by the AP said the 95 percent certainty regarding climate change is most similar to the confidence scientists have in the decades' worth of evidence that cigarettes are deadly. Jeff Severinghaus, a geoscientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, said that through the use of radioactive isotopes, scientists are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. And because of basic physics, scientists are 99 percent certain that carbon traps heat in what is called the greenhouse effect.*


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 26, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > The Science is settled?
> ...






So....if the science is so well recognized....*why the need to censor any opposing voices?*




“The Royal Society of England wrote directly to sympathetic science journalists and asked them *not to cover opposing claims about climate change. *It was false to even mention skeptics; the science was settled.” .Berezow and Campbell, “Science Left Behind,” p.198
“…Royal Society,… writes: "We are appealing to all parts of the UK media to *be vigilant against attempts to present a distorted view of the scientific evidence about climate change* and its potential effects on people and their environments around the world. I hope that we can count on your support."                                                                                    Collins, the UK Telegraph, was shocked…and wrote of the ‘sceptics:’                                                                                                                           These people are not nutcases, nor are they in thrall to the oil companies (even if they were, does anyone seriously believe that Big Oil wants to destroy the planet?). They are* just as capable of doing serious science as those who take it as an article of faith that global warming is all our fault.                               * .Global warming generates hot air - Telegraph
So…this is the state of things. Do not doubt, *politics is more real than what is called ‘science,’ today.*


----------



## elektra (Sep 26, 2014)

elektra said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > We all know you're too retarded to understand scientific data anyway, but here you go....you're on your own from here, bozo....
> ...


Thanks for the link RollingBlunder.

The claim that august is hotter than its been in a hundred years is anything but a fact. As the link rollingblunder provided, states.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 26, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > The Science is settled?
> ...


 

*Some climate-change deniers have looked at 95 percent and scoffed. *

Well, garbage in....garbage out.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 26, 2014)

elektra said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > We all know you're too retarded to understand scientific data anyway, but here you go....you're on your own from here, bozo....






elektra said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > *THE U.S. HISTORICAL CLIMATOLOGY NETWORK MONTHLY TEMPERATURE DATA*
> ...



LOLOLOL.....I keep forgetting how utterly retarded you are....and then you always remind me.....

In the first place, I gave you the link to the THE U.S. HISTORICAL CLIMATOLOGY NETWORK MONTHLY TEMPERATURE DATA. The *"U.S."* temperature data, moron. August is the hottest month on record, in records going back over a century, GLOBALLY, not just in the U.S.

I think I'll trust the scientists at NOAA to correctly interpret the temperature records over the crackpot assessments of a very ignorant denier cult retard like you.

*With records dating back to 1880, the global temperature across the world's land and ocean surfaces for August 2014 was 0.75°C (1.35°F) higher than the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F). This makes August 2014 the warmest August on record for the globe since records began in 1880, beating the previous record set in 1998. Nine of the 10 warmest Augusts on record have occurred during the 21st century. Additionally, August 2014 marked the 38th consecutive August with a temperature above the 20th century average. The last below-average global temperature for August occurred in 1976. The departure from average for the month was also record high for the Northern Hemisphere, at 0.92°C (1.66°F) above average.
(NOAA)*


----------



## elektra (Sep 26, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


You gave me the wrong link with zero temperatures when I asked for the temperatures? 

Nice way to defend your OP.

That is what we call a rolling-blunder.

So go ahead and post the temperatures so we can see if you can support that mouth with a bit of human intelligence.

Retards, I have a good grind that is a "retard". Nice to see a bit of that old fashion bigotry of the past is still part of your human spirit.

Yes, call me a retard, I will wear it proud, I feel for the handicapped, your lack of intelligence is nothing less than extreme, to use those of us who are to be protected for the are mentally handicapped, to use the handicapped as an insult is low.

RollingThunder,  is the lowest of humanity.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 26, 2014)

jc456 said:


> where are the temperature data sets



Same places they were when we showed you the links before. Being you're clueless and gutless, you refused to look at them. And now you're lying by pretending you never saw them. 

So, stupid, cowardly and dishonest. Yep, you've hit the trifecta, and you're officially a member of the denier cult in good standing. I warned you of the lifetime of humiliation that would earn you, but you wouldn't listen. They never listen, and it never turns out well for them, as they generally self-destruct in such highly amusing ways.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 26, 2014)

It's actually not all that surprising that 2014 would be the next new 'warmest year on record' since it turns out that all of the years in this century are among the hottest years on record.

*13 of 14 Hottest Years on Record All Occurred in 21st Century*
Weather.com (The Weather Channel)
By Terrell Johnson
Mar 24, 2014
(excerpts)
*The World Meteorological Organization's Annual Statement on the Status of the Climate showed also that despite the oft-reported global warming "hiatus," 13 of the 14 warmest years in recorded weather history have all occurred in the opening years of the 21st century. Each of the last three decades has been warmer than the previous one, the report adds, and the 2001 to 2010 decade is the warmest in history so far. "There is no standstill in global warming," said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud, drawing a distinction between the relatively slow rise in average land surface temperatures since the late 1990s and other signs of planetary warming, including the dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice and glacial ice around the world. "More than 90 percent of the excess energy trapped by greenhouse gases is stored in the oceans," where warming has accelerated and at lower depths, he added. "Levels of these greenhouse gases are at record levels, meaning that our atmosphere and oceans will continue to warm for centuries to come."

While 2013 brought unusually cool summer temperatures to much of the eastern half of the United States, and one of the quietest Atlantic hurricane seasons in recent memory, the year elsewhere around the world brought many events that "we would expect as a result of human-induced climate change," said Jarraud. "We saw heavier precipitation, more intense heat, and more damage from storm surges and coastal flooding as a result of sea level rise, as Typhoon Haiyan so tragically demonstrated in the Philippines," he added. Temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere were very warm throughout the year, the report notes, evidenced by Australia's record heat as well as the warmth in New Zealand and Argentina, both of which experienced near-record warm years. Searing droughts occurred in northwestern Brazil  that region's worst in 50 years  as well as in southern China and parts of Africa, while heavy rains and severe floods swept through the India-Nepal border region as well as Sudan and Somalia. Extreme precipitation also led to severe floods in Europe, especially in the Alpine regions of Austria, Germany, Poland, Switzerland and the Czech Republic.*

But the deeply delusional denier cult dupes wants to authoritatively tell us that we're in a cooling period. LOLOL.


----------



## elektra (Sep 26, 2014)

Post the temperatures, you will not, because actual temperatures will show you are lying.




RollingThunder said:


> It's actually not all that surprising that 2014 would be the next new 'warmest year on record' since it turns out that all of the years in this century are among the hottest years on record.
> 
> *13 of 14 Hottest Years on Record All Occurred in 21st Century*
> Weather.com (The Weather Channel)
> ...


Post temperatures,  why won't you?

I guess the truth is too big for the liberals to swallow.

Another failed op, the earth is colder, but it takes a scientist to tell if it's warm or cold, at that it takes liberal paid scientists.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 26, 2014)

elektra said:


> Post the temperatures, you will not, because actual temperatures will show you are lying.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Silly troll!

You can lead a moron to science but you can not make him think.


----------



## elektra (Sep 26, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Post the temperatures, you will not, because actual temperatures will show you are lying.
> ...


Then lead, post the temperature, I know you have Google bad tried, but you fail. You can not defend your own op when challenged.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 27, 2014)

elektra said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


Silly troll, I've defended the OP with a number of scientific reports and data sources. You're too retarded to comprehend the data anyway but you act like you can refute the scientific analyses by the leading climate scientists,_ if only_ *I* would show you, in detail, on this forum, all of the world temperature data, 'raw', station by station.....because you are apparently too stupid to look the data up for yourself. LOLOLOL. You're a troll and your deranged twaddle is worthless bullshit.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 27, 2014)

elektra said:


> The Science is settled?





Finally An Explanation Of The global Warming Scam US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 27, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





Finally An Explanation Of The global Warming Scam US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 27, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > where are the temperature data sets
> ...





Finally An Explanation Of The global Warming Scam US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 27, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...





Finally An Explanation Of The global Warming Scam US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 27, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...





Finally An Explanation Of The global Warming Scam US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## elektra (Sep 27, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


You defended your OP, how, by giving us a link to an article that explains there is no data to support the assertion you claim.

Post the temperatures.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 27, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > The Science is settled?
> ...


There's one of the forum nutjobs, totally enamored with his own insanity in starting another thread of deranged denier cult drivel that has no connection to the scientific evidence supporting AGW/CC. More irrelevant idiocy.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 27, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...






"... no connection to the scientific evidence supporting AGW/CC."


That would be zero.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 27, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Only if you're referring to your own intelligence quotient. The sane people are discussing the science supporting AGW/CC, and you bamboozled denier cult nutjobs are obsessed with politics and psycho-babble that have nothing to do with the reality of a rapidly warming planet. You've lost the science part of the debate so you are reduced to this kind of meaningless twaddle.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 27, 2014)

elektra said:


> You defended your OP, how, by giving us a link to an article that explains there is no data to support the assertion you claim.
> 
> Post the temperatures.



More precisely, links to hyperbole and links to failed models, neither of which are empirical evidence of any sort.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 27, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > You defended your OP, how, by giving us a link to an article that explains there is no data to support the assertion you claim. Post the temperatures.
> ...


You crackpots are too stupid to understand the evidence that the world's scientists have used to reach their conclusions. The evidence and data are all available if you look. Your denier cult propaganda meme is to claim that there is no supporting evidence and demand to see it, but this is just another variation on your insane conspiracy theories about the entire world scientific community being involved in a huge hoax.

It is not that there is no evidence, it is a case of you deniers refusing to believe the evidence because the reality of the AGW situation the world is in challenges the ideological/political/economic fantasies about unregulated free-market capitalism that you've been brainwashed into fervently and insanely believing.

Evidence 

*CO2 absorption of infrared (IR), theory:*
*Kouzov, A. P., & Chrysos, M. (2009). Collision-induced absorption by CO 2 in the far infrared: Analysis of leading-order moments and interpretation of the experiment. Physical Review A, 80(4), 042703.
*Chrysos, M., Kouzov, A. P., Egorova, N. I., & Rachet, F. (2008 ). Exact Low-Order Classical Moments in Collision-Induced Bands by Linear Rotors: CO 2-CO 2. Physical review letters, 100(13), 133007.
*Buldyreva, J., & Chrysos, M. (2001). Semiclassical modeling of infrared pressure-broadened linewidths: A comparative analysis in CO2–Ar at various temperatures. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 115(16), 7436-7441.
*Kratz, D. P., Gao, B. C., & Kiehl, J. T. (1991). A study of the radiative effects of the 9.4‐and 10.4‐micron bands of carbon dioxide. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012), 96(D5), 9021-9026.
*Stull, V. R., Wyatt, P. J., & Plass, G. N. (1964). The infrared transmittance of carbon dioxide. Applied Optics, 3(2), 243-254.

*CO2 absorption of IR, laboratory measurements:*
*R.A. Toth, et al., Spectroscopic database of CO2 line parameters: 4300–7000 cm−1, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer,  109:6, April 2008, 906-921.
*Predoi-Cross, A., Unni, A. V., Liu, W., Schofield, I., Holladay, C., McKellar, A. R. W., & Hurtmans, D. (2007). Line shape parameters measurement and computations for self-broadened carbon dioxide transitions in the 30012← 00001 and 30013← 00001 bands, line mixing, and speed dependence. Journal of molecular spectroscopy, 245(1), 34-51.
*Miller, C. E., & Brown, L. R. (2004). Near infrared spectroscopy of carbon dioxide I.[sup] 16[/sup] O[sup] 12[/sup] C[sup] 16[/sup] O line positions. Journal of molecular spectroscopy, 228(2), 329-354.
*Niro, F., Boulet, C., & Hartmann, J. M. (2004). Spectra calculations in central and wing regions of CO[sub] 2[/sub] IR bands between 10 and 20μm. I: model and laboratory measurements. Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 88(4), 483-498.
*Benec'h, S., Rachet, F., Chrysos, M., Buldyreva, J., & Bonamy, L. (2002). On far‐wing Raman profiles by CO2. Journal of Raman Spectroscopy, 33(11‐12), 934-940.

*Earth's upward emission of IR:*
*Murphy, D. M., Solomon, S., Portmann, R. W., Rosenlof, K. H., Forster, P. M., & Wong, T. (2009). An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012), 114(D17).
*Trenberth, K. E., Fasullo, J. T., & Kiehl, J. (2009). Earth's global energy budget. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 90(3).
*Wong, T., Wielicki, B. A., Lee III, R. B., Smith, G. L., Bush, K. A., & Willis, J. K. (2006). Reexamination of the observed decadal variability of the earth radiation budget using altitude-corrected ERBE/ERBS nonscanner WFOV data. Journal of Climate, 19(16).
*Harries, J. E. (2000). Physics of the Earth's radiative energy balance. Contemporary Physics, 41(5), 309-322.
*Kyle, H. L., Arking, A., Hickey, J. R., Ardanuy, P. E., Jacobowitz, H., Stowe, L. L., ... & Smith, G. L. (1993). The Nimbus Earth radiation budget (ERB) experiment: 1975 to 1992. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 74(5), 815-830.
*Barkstrom, B. R. (1984). The earth radiation budget experiment (ERBE). Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 65(11), 1170-1185.

*Changes in Earth's upward IR emission as a result of increased CO2 in the atmosphere:*
*Gastineau, G., Soden, B. J., Jackson, D. L., & O'Dell, C. W. (2014). Satellite-Based Reconstruction of the Tropical Oceanic Clear-Sky Outgoing Longwave Radiation and Comparison with Climate Models. Journal of Climate, 27(2).
*Chapman, D., Nguyen, P., & Halem, M. (2013, May). A decade of measured greenhouse forcings from AIRS. In SPIE Defense, Security, and Sensing (pp. 874313-874313). International Society for Optics and Photonics.
*Chen, C., Harries, J., Brindley, H., & Ringer, M. (2007). Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth's infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006. Retrieved October, 13, 2009.
*Griggs, J. A., & Harries, J. E. (2007). Comparison of Spectrally Resolved Outgoing Longwave Radiation over the Tropical Pacific between 1970 and 2003 Using IRIS, IMG, and AIRS. Journal of climate, 20(15).
*Griggs, J. A., & Harries, J. E. (2004, November). Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present. In Optical Science and Technology, the SPIE 49th Annual Meeting (pp. 164-174). International Society for Optics and Photonics.


*Changes in downwelling infrared from the atmosphere as a result of increased CO2:*
*Wang, K., & Liang, S. (2009). Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all‐sky conditions from 1973 to 2008. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012), 114(D19).
*Wild, M., Grieser, J., & Schär, C. (2008 ). Combined surface solar brightening and increasing greenhouse effect support recent intensification of the global land‐based hydrological cycle. Geophysical Research Letters, 35(17).
*Prata, F. (2008 ). The climatological record of clear‐sky longwave radiation at the Earth's surface: evidence for water vapour feedback?. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 29(17-18 ), 5247-5263.
*Allan, R. P. (2006). Variability in clear‐sky longwave radiative cooling of the atmosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012), 111(D22).
*Philipona, R., Dürr, B., Marty, C., Ohmura, A., & Wild, M. (2004). Radiative forcing‐measured at Earth's surface‐corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect. Geophysical Research Letters, 31(3).

*Formal determination of CO2-temperature causality:*
* Attanasio, A., Pasini, A., & Triacca, U. (2013). Granger Causality Analyses for Climatic Attribution. Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, 3, 515.
* Attanasio, A. (2012). Testing for linear Granger causality from natural/anthropogenic forcings to global temperature anomalies. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 110(1-2), 281-289.
* Attanasio, A., Pasini, A., & Triacca, U. (2012). A contribution to attribution of recent global warming by out‐of‐sample Granger causality analysis. Atmospheric Science Letters, 13(1), 67-72.
* Kodra, E., Chatterjee, S., & Ganguly, A. R. (2011). Exploring Granger causality between global average observed time series of carbon dioxide and temperature. Theoretical and applied climatology, 104(3-4), 325-335.
* Verdes, P. F. (2005). Assessing causality from multivariate time series. PHYSICAL REVIEW-SERIES E-, 72(2), 026222.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 27, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


[red highlighting is mine]

Crick, Your wall o-shit is just that..  shit!

I understand the theroy of CO2 and how it functions in our atmosphere. I have even done the experiments.  What you fail to accept is the closed cylinder of a lab and our OPEN system of the earth are TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS.

All of the papers you have listed used MODELING to state their outcomes. The models predictive performance is ZERO... They have all failed to produce observable output which even remotely reflect actual observations.

I can go into a long dissertation why each of these papers has significant problems. Their basis starts from a preconceived or desired outcome along with copious amounts of grant funding.

Tell me Crick, when you apply a 30% water vapor content between that gas cylinder in the lab and its green screen what happens to the received energy?


----------



## elektra (Sep 27, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


Its just the temperature, idiot. We don't need no Scientist to tell us if its the hottest month ever, just let us see the temperatures, I don't need no scientist to pick the biggest number.

you need a scientist?


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 27, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick, Your wall o-shit is just that..  shit!
> 
> I understand the theroy of CO2 and how it functions in our atmosphere. I have even done the experiments.  What you fail to accept is the closed cylinder of a lab and our OPEN system of the earth are TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS.
> 
> ...



And another deranged anti-science denier cult dingbat spews his fraudulent cultic myths and propaganda that have no connection to the real world. The deniers are getting so desperate as their myths crumble in the face of reality - 2014 is going to be the next new 'hottest year on record' - and that's just killing them.


----------



## Vigilante (Sep 27, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Crick, Your wall o-shit is just that..  shit!
> ...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 27, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> And another deranged anti-science denier cult dingbat spews his fraudulent cultic myths and propaganda that have no connection to the real world. The deniers are getting so desperate as their myths crumble in the face of reality - 2014 is going to be the next new 'hottest year on record' - and that's just killing them.



Got to admit it, You got being a moron down pat!   

The only way it will be the 'hottest year ev-a'  is if your friends at NOAA/GISS fuck with the data  and lie some more...  How does it feel to be living a lie? I'll bet your proud of that...


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 27, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





Pay careful attention to a Global Warming Scientist at East Anglia as he spills the beans:
What happened to the truth?


In academia, *truth has fallen in priority to ideology*, also known as the ‘greater truth’ of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is climate change. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. ‘Post-modern science’ starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor.
 *Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), *[Mike Hulme  and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007:                                                                                                     “…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labelled "post-normal" science. *Climate change seems to fall in this category. *Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. *Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking*,…                                                                                                                     ....*scientists* - and politicians -* must trade (normal) truth for influence*. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise *the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity*…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.”  The appliance of science Society The Guardian.

Again???
"...Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” 

3.  So* global warming theory did not seek to establish the truth through evidence. *Instead, truth had to be traded for influence: scientists presented beliefs as a basis for policy. The shame: science has been junked in the interest of promoting ideological conviction.


4. The leading proponents of ‘post-normal science,’ PNS, Funtowicz and Ravetz, have written that, in issue-driven science, ‘*facts’ and ‘values’ are unified by replacing ‘truth’ by ‘quality.’ * 
http://www.ecoeco.org/pdf/pstnormsc.pdf



5. Thus, we have a doctrine of mandated intellectual mendacity.


*Now do you understand what a fool you've been played for????*


----------



## elektra (Sep 27, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Crick, Your wall o-shit is just that..  shit!
> ...


Its just the temperature, idiot. We don't need no Scientist to tell us if its the hottest month ever, just let us see the temperatures, I don't need no scientist to pick the biggest number.

you need a scientist?


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 27, 2014)

Four more deranged denier cultists spew more anti-science denier cult insanity and nonsense. Four more vacuous, space-wasting posts from retards too confused to know their ass from their elbow. This is like trying to debate physics with pre-schoolers. Really stupid pre-schoolers!


----------



## Vigilante (Sep 27, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Four more deranged denier cultists spew more anti-science denier cult insanity and nonsense. Four more vacuous, space-wasting posts from retards too confused to know their ass from their elbow. This is like trying to debate physics with pre-schoolers. Really stupid pre-schoolers!



Winning converts and influencing people, is NOT in this fucking idiots bag of tricks!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 27, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Four more deranged denier cultists spew more anti-science denier cult insanity and nonsense. Four more vacuous, space-wasting posts from retards too confused to know their ass from their elbow. This is like trying to debate physics with pre-schoolers. Really stupid pre-schoolers!







"Really stupid pre-schoolers" like this:
*Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA)


He pretty well destroyed you, huh?*


----------



## elektra (Sep 27, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Four more deranged denier cultists spew more anti-science denier cult insanity and nonsense. Four more vacuous, space-wasting posts from retards too confused to know their ass from their elbow. This is like trying to debate physics with pre-schoolers. Really stupid pre-schoolers!


Its just the temperature, idiot. We don't need no Scientist to tell us if its the hottest month ever, just let us see the temperatures, I don't need no scientist to pick the biggest number.

you need a scientist?


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 27, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Four more deranged denier cultists spew more anti-science denier cult insanity and nonsense. Four more vacuous, space-wasting posts from retards too confused to know their ass from their elbow. This is like trying to debate physics with pre-schoolers. Really stupid pre-schoolers!
> ...



LOLOLOL.....you poor moron....Dr. Hulme is doing fine....you are the "_really stupid pre-schooler_" for believing that crackpot rightwingnut spin your puppetmasters put on his article.

Which is actually a thoughtful article about the difficulties in communicating the scientific consensus on AGW to the public. Everybody should read it. The original that is, not the cherry-picked quotes the denier propagandists use.

*The appliance of science*


----------



## elektra (Sep 27, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


Post the actual temperatures, 

Its just the temperature, idiot. We don't need no Scientist to tell us if its the hottest month ever, just let us see the temperatures, I don't need no scientist to pick the biggest number.

you need a scientist?


----------



## Vigilante (Sep 27, 2014)




----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 27, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





He said global science isn't science.


----------



## Vigilante (Sep 27, 2014)




----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 27, 2014)

elektra said:


> Post the actual temperatures,
> 
> Its just the temperature, idiot. We don't need no Scientist to tell us if its the hottest month ever, just let us see the temperatures, I don't need no scientist to pick the biggest number.
> 
> you need a scientist?



Here... let me help an old man set in his ways..

Hey Crick this post is for you!



 

Now that is the temperature plot since 1850.  Do you see where we are today? The divergence to cooling is massive...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 27, 2014)

Wood for Trees Interactive Graphs


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 27, 2014)

Denier cultists and their cherry-picked graphs and deranged pseudo-science are hilariously pathetic.

In the real world things look different...


----------



## Vigilante (Sep 27, 2014)




----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 27, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Denier cultists and their cherry-picked graphs and deranged pseudo-science are hilariously pathetic.
> 
> In the real world things look different...



Every one of Criks graphs end in 2008... because then they dont show cooling..

IF we go out long enough we can show that it is a cyclical phase. Thus all the talk of the last 10 or so years would be normal and at the top of sine wave curve which would then turn downward into cooling.... Wait!  that is why Crick refuses to show the last 5 years...


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 27, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Denier cultists and their cherry-picked graphs and deranged pseudo-science are hilariously pathetic.
> ...


The graph ends in 2013, retard.

The reason none of the graphs show cooling is because there hasn't been any cooling , you poor delusional cretin.

The warmest years on record are going to be in this order after 2014 becomes the new 'hottest year'.

*#1. 2014
#2. 2010
#3. 2005
#4. 2007
#5. 2009
#6. 2013*


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 27, 2014)

Regardless of how you order them, 9 of the ten warmest years have been since 2000. And the exception is 1998. Given the decrease in the Total Solar Irradiance, the increase in aerosols from India and China, and the fact that we have not had a strong El Nino since 1998, we really should be seeing a cooling. And now, for 2014, a year that has thus far been ENSO neutral, it looks like we are going to have the warmest year on record. Wonder what the next El Nino is going to bring?


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 29, 2014)

West Coast warming linked to naturally occurring changes - LA Times

*naturally oCcuRiNg cYcLeS s0ns!!!*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 29, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Regardless of how you order them, 9 of the ten warmest years have been since 2000. And the exception is 1998. Given the decrease in the Total Solar Irradiance, the increase in aerosols from India and China, and the fact that we have not had a strong El Nino since 1998, we really should be seeing a cooling. And now, for 2014, a year that has thus far been ENSO neutral, it looks like we are going to have the warmest year on record. Wonder what the next El Nino is going to bring?



The top of a sine wave will always have double the normal amount of highs just as the bottom part of that same wave will double the amount of cold.  Warmists really are clueless.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 29, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Post the actual temperatures,
> ...



Very Very interesting chart. But it's not simple global temperature and it's not trend.
It shows the differential between adjacent years. # of degrees compared to "last year". There is a clear indication of a periodic cycle that is almost pure sinewave. What has a 60 year cycle --- eh?

And what would show as sinewave on a differentiated plot?? What would it look like INTEGRATED ?? Hmmmmmm.. And integrated by WHAT?? Tune in next week on 
"As the World Burns"...


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 29, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> The top of a sine wave will always have double the normal amount of highs just as the bottom part of that same wave will double the amount of cold.  Warmists really are clueless.


Pseudo-scientific jabber without meaning.

The rise in even just the near surface air temperatures, let alone the ocean temperatures, is NOT any kind of "_sine wave_", moron. It is a strongly rising trend, modulated by by both natural and artificial factors that either enhance or retard the warming.


----------



## elektra (Sep 29, 2014)

Still won't post the temperatures.

Sad


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 29, 2014)

elektra said:


> Still won't post the temperatures.
> 
> Sad


Eeekthetroll is still trolling.

Pathetic.


----------



## elektra (Sep 29, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Still won't post the temperatures.
> ...


Asking how hot in a thread about the temperature is trolling?


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 29, 2014)

elektra said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


In your case, yes.

The temperature data is publicly available. Nobody here wants to be your servant or fetch you any already available info you choose to demand. Screw you. You are pushing the incredibly idiotic denier propaganda meme of claiming that if someone posts every temp for every month of every year collected at every temperature station in the world, you can easily disprove AGW/CC and show that all of the world's scientists are wrong, and if nobody falls for that BS, you can claim that everyone is afraid to provide the data. LOLOLOL. You are a troll and your moronic drivel adds nothing but meaningless noise to the debates on this topic.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 29, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 
The only moronic drivel or meaningless noise allowed has to be on the side of the warmists!


----------



## elektra (Sep 29, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


I have challenged you in your thread, it is a thread about temperature. It is more relevant to post the temperature to links simply stating it was hot with a study to prove it.

You made a claim, it's mother me requesting you to be my servant, you started this thread, not me.

You have not proved your claim.

Don't answer is fine with me, others can read and see you dodge your own premise in your very own op.

You start an op, you are the servant to the op.

Find and post the temperature, quit hiding the trutb. It's your thread.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 29, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



What happened at the points where the average temperature was close to zero divergence? Solar polarity flip or low solar output. There are two competing sign waves in that plot.



 (sorry for the mess but this was done without normal aids)

This plot has massive amounts of information. You will note the off setting sign waves that follow the suns magnetic signature. there is a 100% replication of the suns magnetic flux and pole reversal. 
(red line)

You will note that there is a warming side of the wave and a cooling side.  This too is very close in replication.  The bottom side of the chart shows storm energy which bottoms out in the low part of the cycle. (where temperature differential is at its least). 

 I will do a much better graph when I get back to my computer.. You can see the ADO and PDO shifts as well as El Nino years.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 29, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Very Very interesting chart. But it's not simple global temperature and it's not trend.
> ...



There's something else that I see in that. The ENVELOPE of the temp response is as you describe, but the interannual variations have a natural ringing quality to them that I've not noticed before. It's a type of resonance that appears REGARDLESS of the envelope of the sine wave.  High to lows in a period of about 1.5 to 2 years.. 

From a system response point of view, the envelope is due to the forcings but the "tuned natural frequency" is more likely the result of the system RESPONSE to the forcings. Many systems with storage and delays will ring like that.. Wonder how far back you could recreate that plot..


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 29, 2014)

Details like that might only show on a well sampled data like USHCN.. 
Could be why I've never seen anything like that before..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 29, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Sunspot numbers go back to the 1300's so I assume we could recreate it back to the beginning of the LIA.. The envelope that is.  the internal workings would be lost with out actual observations.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 29, 2014)

You want a full data set? Here it is;

Berkeley Earth

Berkeley Earth


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 29, 2014)

So, you keep asking for data. This report has all the data that was available.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 29, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Details like that might only show on a well sampled data like USHCN..
> Could be why I've never seen anything like that before..





 
The black lines are each time the PDO went cold.  The last black line is the only time in recorded history that we have observed both the ADO and PDO go cold at the same time.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 29, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> So, you keep asking for data. This report has all the data that was available.



Berkley's data is all ADJUSTED every single data point. I will use other unadjusted temps for my work. There are papers out today which show that 90% Of all warming post 1900 is adjustments.  Given how stable the earth has been and the USCRN recent input to the game showing the amount of bias, I am of the opinion that Berkley's stuff is crap.

IF you remove the 0.8 to 1.2 deg C that is pointed out by several groups of scientists as being alteration crap the current cycles are of no statistical significance.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 29, 2014)

Let's see.....8 posts, #151-156 & 159 & 160, consisting of denier cult insanity, crackpot conspiracy theories, and laughable pseudo-science....and then two sane factual posts, #157 & 158, correcting the fallacious denier cult twaddle and providing actual factual scientific information, the temperature data sets that the deniers seemed idiotically unable to locate. The contrast is so obvious and rather humorous.

But of course, what is so obvious to normal people is invisible to these Dunning-Kruger Effect afflicted denier cult dingbats.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 29, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Let's see.....8 posts, #151-156 & 159 & 160, consisting of denier cult insanity, crackpot conspiracy theories, and laughable pseudo-science, and then two sane factual posts, #157 & 158, correcting the fallacious denier cult twaddle and providing actual factual scientific information, the temperature data sets that the deniers seemed idiotically unable to locate. The contrast is so obvious and rather humorous.
> 
> But of course, what is so obvious to normal people is invisible to these Dunning-Kruger Effect afflicted denier cult dingbats.


 
It's obvious we must waste.....er spend trillions on unreliable energy in order to reduce
global temperatures in 2080 by 0.1 degrees. You've convinced me with your consensus.
Thanks!


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 29, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > So, you keep asking for data. This report has all the data that was available.
> ...



There are papers out there that show that 90% of all warming post 1900 is alteration? So, my ignorant little buddy, why the hell did you not post a link to several of those papers? Come on now, you want any kind of credibility, post your links. Don't be shy, but if they are from the Daily Enquirer, we will only eviserate you. LOL.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 29, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Let's see.....8 posts, #151-156 & 159 & 160, consisting of denier cult insanity, crackpot conspiracy theories, and laughable pseudo-science, and then two sane factual posts, #157 & 158, correcting the fallacious denier cult twaddle and providing actual factual scientific information, the temperature data sets that the deniers seemed idiotically unable to locate. The contrast is so obvious and rather humorous.
> ...



It is only obvious that you are a fucking idiot. Post something real, with links to sources. All we have ever gotten from you is useless flap-yap.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 29, 2014)

Crick said:


> Besides being moot and meaningless, none of that changes the fact that the vast majority of people DO consider you pathetic fringe whack jobs.



Tell 'em how the Deep Pacific Ocean ate your global warming


----------



## elektra (Sep 30, 2014)

and still, nobody posts what the temperatures are,


RollingThunder said:


> Let's see.....8 posts, #151-156 & 159 & 160, consisting of denier cult insanity, crackpot conspiracy theories, and laughable pseudo-science....and then two sane factual posts, #157 & 158, correcting the fallacious denier cult twaddle and providing actual factual scientific information, the temperature data sets that the deniers seemed idiotically unable to locate. The contrast is so obvious and rather humorous.
> 
> But of course, what is so obvious to normal people is invisible to these Dunning-Kruger Effect afflicted denier cult dingbats.


Just remember, from the OP itself, the "scientist", qualify the statement, "_2014 on track to be hottest year on record_", with;

(with respect to a 1981-2010 base period)

2014 On Track To Be Hottest Year On Record


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 30, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Tell 'em how the Deep Pacific Ocean ate your global warming


Is that some kind of special 'retard' joke?

In the real world most of the sun's energy that strikes the Earth winds up in the oceans and that is how it has always been. As the Earth heats up due to the increased CO2 levels in the air, sometimes currents carry warmer waters down into the depths in one place and colder waters from the depths to the surface in another place, or vice versa, and this strongly affects surface air temperatures over the oceans, and thus world average surface temperatures. At this time some of these currents are driven by natural cycles, like the ENSO, PDO, and AMOC, but some research indicates that some changes in ocean currents happening now may be due to AGW driven changes in wind patterns and speeds.

In any case, this is how it has always been....


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 30, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Tell 'em how the Deep Pacific Ocean ate your global warming
> ...












[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Israeli_Stop_Sign.png.html]
	
[/URL]


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 30, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


And up pops a _really_ 'special' retard with his usual mindless drivel.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 30, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 




but winning.

Like I said 2 years ago s0n......provide me a *single solitary link* that shows where the "consensus sciece" is mattering in the real world.


This "retard" is still waitin'


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 30, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Tell 'em how the Deep Pacific Ocean ate your global warming
> ...



...and we all know Popeye the Sailor kept meticulous records of ocean temperature going back 200 years

AGWCult is over, the last fool out please turn off the lights


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 Too amusing to say the least!!!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 30, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> New scientific evidence, once again, exposes the delusional, ideologically motivated claims of the AGW deniers that the Earth is not still warming (or, even more crazy, "_cooling_") for the fraudulent nonsense that they are.
> 
> *2014 on Track to be Hottest Year on Record*
> Climate Central
> ...








AGWCult singing: Global Warming, Global Cooling, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, the Pacific ocean ate my global warming


----------



## SillyWabbit (Sep 30, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Hilarious. The poor desperate deniers have devolved into all-conspiracy all-the-time nutters. They literally have no other arguments beyond TheGreatSocialistConspiracy.
> 
> That's why the whole planet is laughing at them. Get used to your constant humiliation, deniers. After all, you've worked hard to earn all the ridicule you're getting.



Well, I think if the "deniers" are wrong the laugh will be on all of us, won't it?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 30, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Hilarious. The poor desperate deniers have devolved into all-conspiracy all-the-time nutters. They literally have no other arguments beyond TheGreatSocialistConspiracy.
> 
> That's why the whole planet is laughing at them. Get used to your constant humiliation, deniers. After all, you've worked hard to earn all the ridicule you're getting.


 Hey, Moonbat, does the ocean consume 93% of the Warming per TrollingBlunders chart?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2014)

SillyWabbit said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Hilarious. The poor desperate deniers have devolved into all-conspiracy all-the-time nutters. They literally have no other arguments beyond TheGreatSocialistConspiracy.
> ...


 
Wrong about what?


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 30, 2014)

And a few more empty, vacuous, waste-of-time posts that say nothing from the anti-science denier cult dupes.

In the real world....

*Global Oceans Break All-Time Heat Record; World on Pace for Warmest Year Ever*
Slate
By Eric Holthaus
SEPT. 18 2014
(excerpts)
*The Earth’s oceans have never been this far beyond the bounds of normal. New data released Thursday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration showed that Earth’s oceans reached a level last month not seen since humans have been keeping comprehensive records. Global ocean temperatures in August 2014 warmed to “the largest departure from average for any month on record” according to a NOAA statement. The previous record was set just two months ago, in June 2014. Records date back to 1880, though there’s ample evidence that the new record hasn’t been matched in much longer than that. The NOAA data also showed the temperature of the Earth as a whole hit a new all-time August record last month, confirming similar results earlier this week from NASA and the Japanese Meteorological Agency, which use slightly different ways of crunching the numbers.

Additionally, the combined temperature of June, July, and August was also unprecedented in historical records. According to the JMA, four of the last five months have now been record-breaking for that particular month. (July was No. 2, just a hair behind the super-charged El Niño year of 1998.) The eastern United States is among the only land areas on Earth still running below normal for 2014, a legacy of the polar vortex outbreaks of earlier this year. Later Thursday morning, NOAA expanded on the implications of the new records in a conference call, saying that on its current pace—and with the help of a newly resurgent El Niño—2014 is poised to become the warmest year ever measured. “If the next four months rank among the five warmest on record, 2014 will be the warmest on record for the globe,” said Jake Crouch of the National Climatic Data Center. The warming effect of El Niño, which boosts temperatures in the tropical Pacific Ocean, appears to have begun finally kicking into gear over the last week or so. In a separate announcement Thursday, the International Research Institute for Climate and Society declared that “borderline El Niño conditions have now returned in both ocean and atmosphere.” The El Niño is expected to persist until at least March 2015, affecting a range of weather patterns around the globe over the coming months. Should 2014 become the new warmest year, a lingering El Niño means the record may not last long.*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 30, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> And a few more empty, vacuous, waste-of-time posts that say nothing from the anti-science denier cult dupes.
> 
> In the real world....
> 
> ...









*Arg argg argg arggg me and me spinach kept meticulous record of ocean heat *


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 30, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > And a few more empty, vacuous, waste-of-time posts that say nothing from the anti-science denier cult dupes.
> ...


And still more ignorant anti-science drivel from ol' CrazyFruitcake. Even more insane this time than usual.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 30, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Tell them how that nasty ocean ate 93% of the warming.  First time I'm hearing about it


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> And a few more empty, vacuous, waste-of-time posts that say nothing from the anti-science denier cult dupes.
> 
> In the real world....
> 
> ...


 
*New data** released Thursday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration showed that Earth’s oceans reached a level last month not seen since humans have been keeping comprehensive records.*

Man, that's fucking hilarious! Keep it up, I can always use a good laugh.

Quick, let's cripple our economy, parts of the ocean are warmer than they were 30 years ago.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 Please explain how what you're posting is science?  I believe that the science is the business of observation vs models, not manipulating temperature readings off thermometers, so tell me how that is science?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 30, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Tell 'em how the Deep Pacific Ocean ate your global warming
> ...



The oceans, 70% of volume and consume 130% of their weigh in "Global Warming"

LOLz

The Ocean ate my Global Warming!!! 

There's no Lull, there's only LOLz


----------



## SillyWabbit (Sep 30, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SillyWabbit said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



If the "deniers" are wrong about global warming being nothing more than a leftwing scam, then we're well down the road to self destruction and things are getting ready to break off--and there's nothing we can do.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2014)

SillyWabbit said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SillyWabbit said:
> ...


 
Self destruction? Why? Warmer is better.
Look up climatic optimum.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 30, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



You warming morons dont get it..  

There is always something that can be learned from most papers. There are signals that can be discerned even if the paper is total garbage as most alarmist things are.

BEST is a pile of crap. Things can be learned from it but the premise of CAGW is trash.



> It soon became obvious that the homogenization process was unwittingly blending rising minimum temperatures caused by population growth with temperatures from more natural landscapes. Climate scientists cloistered in their offices have no way of knowing to what degree urbanization or other landscape factors have distorted each weather station’s data. So they developed an armchair statistical method that blended trends amongst several neighboring stations,17 using what I term the “blind majority rules” method. The most commonly shared trend among neighboring stations became the computer’s reference, and temperatures from “deviant stations” were adjusted to create a chimeric climate smoothie. Wherever there was a growth in population, this unintentionally allows urbanization warming effects to alter the adjusted trend.



There is much data out there to show how adjustments and homogenization of well sited stations with three or four poorly sited stations give warming where none should be seen.

Most climate morons will believe lies rather than seek the truth.

Source


----------



## Kosh (Sep 30, 2014)

And yet out of all these posts the AGW still has not shown one shred of scientific evidence that supports their religious scriptures.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 30, 2014)

Kosh said:


> And yet out of all these posts the AGW still has not shown one shred of scientific evidence that supports their religious scriptures.



Do I bring out the Null Hypothesis?  (has a kind of a Monty python ring to it doesn't it)


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 1, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



The Earth has continued to get hotter at an accelerating rate as CO2 levels have continued to rise. This added heat energy is distributed among all of the parts of the Earth from a number of feet under the ground and thousands of feet deep in the oceans to high in the atmosphere, with the large majority of the energy going into the biggest heat sink on the planet, the oceans. This is not new. Over 90% of ALL of the sun's energy, not just the extra AGW portion, has always been going into the oceans. That seems like 'news' to you denialists because you all seem so very ignorant about basic science, as well as the science involved in climate change studies.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 1, 2014)

> Do I bring out the Null Hypothesis?



But AGW admirably disproves the null hypothesis. Where did you get the loony idea that it hasn't? Remember, your ignorance of the science doesn't meant the science is wrong.

Normal humans, when they see how the whole planet says they're wrong, are willing to entertain the concept that yes, they probably are wrong. In contrast, most deniers manifest large amounts of paranoia and narcissism, so they'll declare they can't be wrong, ever, and that clearly the whole world is conspiring against them.


----------



## Rehmani (Oct 1, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> New scientific evidence, once again, exposes the delusional, ideologically motivated claims of the AGW deniers that the Earth is not still warming (or, even more crazy, "_cooling_") for the fraudulent nonsense that they are.
> 
> *2014 on Track to be Hottest Year on Record*
> Climate Central
> ...


We are responsible, we have to fix up our habits for example don't cut trees for example put our dead bodies under ground for example build our city in desert not in rein forest and more.......


----------



## Kosh (Oct 1, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



And the AGW dogma rules the day over actual science and logic.

Must be nice not being able to think for ones self.


----------



## Kosh (Oct 1, 2014)

mamooth said:


> > Do I bring out the Null Hypothesis?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You post proves the null hypothesis based on your blind loyalty to the AGW religious scriptures not based on any real science.


----------



## Kosh (Oct 1, 2014)

It is often reported that the temperature of the earth is higher the past 20 years than it has ever been in history. This is simply not true, nor has it ever been. Hundreds of research studies using ice cores, pollen sedimentation, tree rings, etc. have shown that there were dozens of periods in the past 11,000 years (the Holocene period) that earth's temperature was warmer than it is today. Earth's temperature was very much warmer at least four times during the current interglacial period.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 1, 2014)

mamooth said:


> > Do I bring out the Null Hypothesis?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 So you can see the whole planet now can you!!


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 1, 2014)

Kosh said:


> It is often reported that the temperature of the earth is higher the past 20 years than it has ever been in history. This is simply not true, nor has it ever been. Hundreds of research studies using ice cores, pollen sedimentation, tree rings, etc. have shown that there were dozens of periods in the past 11,000 years (the Holocene period) that earth's temperature was warmer than it is today. Earth's temperature was very much warmer at least four times during the current interglacial period.



Wrong. Denier cult myths based on cherry-picking the data.

In the real world, this is the scientific temperature record for the Holocene. The Earth's temperatures are currently at the upper tip of the red line on the far right side of the graph.





*Blue curve: Global temperature reconstruction from proxy data of Marcott et al, Science 2013. Shown here is the RegEM version – significant differences between the variants with different averaging methods arise only towards the end, where the number of proxy series decreases. This does not matter since the recent temperature evolution is well known from instrumental measurements, shown in red (global temperature from the instrumental HadCRU data). Graph: Klaus Bitterman.*
*(source: Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf at RealClimate)*


----------



## jc456 (Oct 1, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > It is often reported that the temperature of the earth is higher the past 20 years than it has ever been in history. This is simply not true, nor has it ever been. Hundreds of research studies using ice cores, pollen sedimentation, tree rings, etc. have shown that there were dozens of periods in the past 11,000 years (the Holocene period) that earth's temperature was warmer than it is today. Earth's temperature was very much warmer at least four times during the current interglacial period.
> ...


 Nope!!!


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 1, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Nope!!!



Idiotic, anti-science, mindless denial of reality in its purest and most insane form. Way to go, JustCrazy, you win the "biggest retard of the day" award.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 1, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Nope!!!
> ...


 To my science, no, to your psuedoscience Damn Yes. CAN YOU HEAR ME?  It doesn't matter how many times you post your lies, I and others will continue to take a dump on it.  Your links are mostly all lies.  THAT AIN'T GOING TO CHANGE HERE, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 1, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



No, it hasn't.

All of a sudden we're measuring the oceans, because they ate the AGW


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 1, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


I post the scientific facts about AGW/CC from the most reputable sources in the world scientific community to debunk the lies, pseudo-science and propaganda the little retarded stooges for the fossil fuel industry like you try to push. It is your lies that have been debunked here, JustCrazy, as any objective observer would agree. Your ideologically motivated denial of the scientific facts about AGW is just very pathetic as well as very insane.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 1, 2014)

SillyWabbit said:


> If the "deniers" are wrong about global warming being nothing more than a leftwing scam, then we're well down the road to self destruction and things are getting ready to break off--and there's nothing we can do.



Get a grip Wabbit -- It's changed a whole 0.4degC in your lifetime (if that). That's 1/3 of the change between your weather today and yesterday... Here ---      the skeptics will warn you in ample time to panic..


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 1, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> *The Earth has continued to get hotter at an accelerating rate as CO2 levels have continued to rise. *This added heat energy is distributed among all of the parts of the Earth from a number of feet under the ground and thousands of feet deep in the oceans to high in the atmosphere, with the large majority of the energy going into the biggest heat sink on the planet, the oceans. This is not new. Over 90% of ALL of the sun's energy, not just the extra AGW portion, has always been going into the oceans. That seems like 'news' to you denialists because you all seem so very ignorant about basic science, as well as the science involved in climate change studies.



See that "big font" quote above? Absolutely conclusive evidence that NONE of ANYTHING you're posted has even sunk into your tiny brain..


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 1, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



a flawed model isn't a scientific fact


----------



## jc456 (Oct 1, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


Dude, Again, I don't care!  I don't believe your psuedoscience.  You can post it all you want, it doesn't matter, the planet is not agreeing with you as crusaderfrank has already pointed out.  So, for the facts that you can't seem to understand, there is a pause while CO2 increased.  That is something you can't disprove, I have your own IPCC ar5 report to use against any come back.  So friend, you LoSe!!!!  Go ahead and repeat it again, I'll just get on and do what I've been doing,  You don't seem to learn.Hah!!!!!!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 1, 2014)

mamooth said:


> > Do I bring out the Null Hypothesis?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Lets do this one more time...  for the morons who cant read or do math..

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000.  Below each is  the rate of warming.






The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now wait... this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..






So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

The Null Hypothesis describes the natural state being the correct one even if there is potential for an alternative state. AGW states that increasing CO2 causes warming. However, the Null Hypothesis states that empirical evidence trumps theroy or hypothesis. 

The alarmists can not stop natural variation so that natural cycle must continue. All that remains is then suspect in it origins. There isn't  anything left over.... Thus the forcing can be stated at 0.0 Deg C for an increase of 130ppm.


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 1, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > *The Earth has continued to get hotter at an accelerating rate as CO2 levels have continued to rise. *This added heat energy is distributed among all of the parts of the Earth from a number of feet under the ground and thousands of feet deep in the oceans to high in the atmosphere, with the large majority of the energy going into the biggest heat sink on the planet, the oceans. This is not new. Over 90% of ALL of the sun's energy, not just the extra AGW portion, has always been going into the oceans. That seems like 'news' to you denialists because you all seem so very ignorant about basic science, as well as the science involved in climate change studies.
> ...


What I said is true and scientifically affirmed. Thank God none of the bogus bullshit and fraudulent pseudo-science you've posted has ever managed to sink its insanity into my well informed brain. Too bad your tiny brain is so full of misinformation, propaganda and lies.

*The 'pause' in global warming is not even a thing*
*All signs point to an acceleration of human-caused climate change. So why all this talk of a pause?*
The Guardian
Graham Readfearn
11 February 2014


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 1, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



"scientifically affirmed" by predictive MODELS which have no basis in reality....


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 1, 2014)

Uh - Oh.. Big Font guy is in deep denial here. Even questions the head council of his IPCC church elders.. 

Job is done. The Cub Scouts can mop up the rest of the resisters..


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 1, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Hard to tell what the poor deluded zealot is relying on.. The article is quite a laugh. A variation on the Ocean Ate My Warming, but THIS TIME, the culprit is wind.. And WIND moves the heat from the surface to 700 meters deep.. No explanation of how the heat rate hasn't changed in 60 yrs, but SUDDENLY pulls heat deep into the ocean.. Kinda of fucking impossibility there -- yet to be explained..

Not gonna pull another muscle over this...  Especially since TinkerBelle believes it's ACCELERATING.. Now that deserves a chuckle...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 1, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Hard to tell what the poor deluded zealot is relying on.. The article is quite a laugh. A variation on the Ocean Ate My Warming, but THIS TIME, the culprit is wind.. And WIND moves the heat from the surface to 700 meters deep.. No explanation of how the heat rate hasn't changed in 60 yrs, but SUDDENLY pulls heat deep into the ocean.. Kinda of fucking impossibility there -- yet to be explained..
> 
> Not gonna pull another muscle over this...  Especially since TinkerBelle believes it's ACCELERATING.. Now that deserves a chuckle...



He must of found a new law of thermal dynamics that the rest of us are not privy to...


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 2, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > > Do I bring out the Null Hypothesis?
> ...



There is a small problem here.. Although your numbers are reliable, the deal is that to EXPECT a linear rise in temp. at the surface, you require an EXPONENTIAL rise in CO2.. That comes from the other analysis of the CO2 forcing function that you've posted. So --- unless I curve-fit that documented rise in CO2 -- I can't RULE OUT that it could produce a linear rise in temp. Even over BOTH of those time segments. 

There are bigger issues with expecting a complex system like the Climate to produce an output that EXACTLY MATCHES any one of it's input forcing functions. Should NEVER be anticipated. And that comes from Systems Theory that imposes integrals and delays on any system that has transfer delays and storage. The whole curve-matching thingy is Sesame Street level science.. We KNOW for instance that delays of 10 to 100 years are postulated for thermal equilibrium. And that MASSIVE storage elements are present. No reason to be looking for inputs that look like the thermal inputs to the Earth's climate system. None at all..


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 2, 2014)

Here's another model!!


----------



## mamooth (Oct 2, 2014)

Deniers illustrate the problems with the self-esteem cult. They've been told all their lives what special little unique snowflakes they are, and that all opinions have equal validity, and that trying is only the important thing. Then they run into science, where only results matter, and they can't understand why their special little snowflake opinions aren't taken seriously, and why they don't get a participation trophy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 2, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Deniers illustrate the problems with the self-esteem cult. They've been told all their lives what special little unique snowflakes they are, and that all opinions have equal validity, and that trying is only the important thing. Then they run into science, where only results matter, and they can't understand why their special little snowflake opinions aren't taken seriously, and why they don't get a participation trophy.


 
*Then they run into science, where only results matter,*

I'd like to see your cost/benefits analysis that justifies your desire to spend tens of trillions on unreliable energy.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 2, 2014)

...and then we added the temperature increase from the Deep Pacific Ocean plus the square of the sum of: the deep interior of Mount Pinatubo plus Mt St Helens plus Mont Blanc pen company


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 2, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



My point, while being simplistic, was to eviscerate the hypothesis put in place by our alarmist friends. The IPCC's theroy explicitly looks for direct causation which is NOT PRESENT. The rise from 270 to 400 should have resulted in .37% of the expected doubling rate of the original 280.  This should have resulted in 2.5 deg C rise over 60 years... That also did not occur.. 

We simply do not have a full understanding of our planets systems. Without that full understanding pointing at one item and saying 'that did it' is totally ludicrous.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 2, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Deniers illustrate the problems with the self-esteem cult. They've been told all their lives what special little unique snowflakes they are, and that all opinions have equal validity, and that trying is only the important thing. Then they run into science, where only results matter, and they can't understand why their special little snowflake opinions aren't taken seriously, and why they don't get a participation trophy.



The liberal participation trophy..means absolutely nothing...  just like most liberal degrees... they mean nothing because like the trophy they mean squat!


----------



## Crick (Oct 2, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'd like to see your cost/benefits analysis that justifies your desire to spend tens of trillions on unreliable energy.



Here you go

Fifth Assessment Report - Impacts Adaptation and Vulnerability

IPCC WGIII Fifth Assessment Report - Mitigation of Climate Change 2014


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 2, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> ...and then we added the temperature increase from the Deep Pacific Ocean plus the square of the sum of: the deep interior of Mount Pinatubo plus Mt St Helens plus Mont Blanc pen company



  Are you and Trenbreth diving buddies?   (/sarc)


----------



## ScienceRocks (Oct 2, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > *The Earth has continued to get hotter at an accelerating rate as CO2 levels have continued to rise. *This added heat energy is distributed among all of the parts of the Earth from a number of feet under the ground and thousands of feet deep in the oceans to high in the atmosphere, with the large majority of the energy going into the biggest heat sink on the planet, the oceans. This is not new. Over 90% of ALL of the sun's energy, not just the extra AGW portion, has always been going into the oceans. That seems like 'news' to you denialists because you all seem so very ignorant about basic science, as well as the science involved in climate change studies.
> ...



How can something ACCELERATE when it has stopped since 2002? I don't understand.


----------



## saveliberty (Oct 2, 2014)

Let's see, coldest snow filled winter in 50 years, followed this year by another one.  Hey!  I see a trend!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 2, 2014)

saveliberty said:


> Let's see, coldest snow filled winter in 50 years, followed this year by another one.  Hey!  I see a trend!



The arctic is gaining ICe rapidly putting it back in the average for the last 50 years..


----------



## saveliberty (Oct 2, 2014)

...not to mention in my driveway.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 2, 2014)

saveliberty said:


> ...not to mention in my driveway.



WE had snow on Sep 15 and again tonight..  Got to love that gullobal warming..


----------



## saveliberty (Oct 2, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > ...not to mention in my driveway.
> ...



You misspelled gullible.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 2, 2014)

saveliberty said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Hooked on Phonics... Liberals will understand it..


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 3, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Let's see, coldest snow filled winter in 50 years, followed this year by another one.  Hey!  I see a trend!
> ...



Why yes, the sixth lowest extent of ice since satellite observation. And you can see here that the eight lowest years on that record have been the past eight years.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 3, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



But then you omit the sea ice increase of 14% which has not been seen/recorded in historical times...  To funny...  Rapid increase in sea ice and you cling to your ice free meme..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 3, 2014)

The article, entitled: “Forecasting the parameters of sunspot cycle 24 and beyond,” by C. de Jager and S. Duhau, was published in _Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics_, vol. 71 (2009), 239 – 245.
 http://ncwatch.typepad.com/dalton_minimum_returns/2009/02/no-warming-until-after-2014-and-maybe-not-then-.html



> “We find that the system is presently undergoing a transition from the recent Grand Maximum to another regime. This transition started in 2000 and it is expected to end around the maximum of cycle 24, foreseen for 2014, with a maximum sunspot number Rmax = 68 Â± 17. At that time a period of lower solar activity will start. That period will be one of regular oscillations, as occurred between 1730 and 1923. The first of these oscillations may even turn out to be as strongly negative as around 1810, in which case a short Grand Minimum similar to the Dalton one might develop. This moderate to low-activity episode is expected to last for at least one Gleissberg cycle (60 - 100 years).”



IT appears that these scientists predictions were right on the money so far and if the remainder of their predictions are correct its going to be very cold for upwards of 100 years....


----------



## mamooth (Oct 3, 2014)

In less liberal times, folks like Billy and so many of the deniers would have been forcibly institutionalized for being batshit crazy.

So, you'd think they'd be more appreciative of the liberals. Because of us, they're not in the funny farm. Is it too much to hope for, to get a "thank you"?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 3, 2014)

mamooth said:


> In less liberal times, folks like Billy and so many of the deniers would have been forcibly institutionalized for being batshit crazy.
> 
> So, you'd think they'd be more appreciative of the liberals. Because of us, they're not in the funny farm. Is it too much to hope for, to get a "thank you"?



Drive By Dumping of crap and name calling.... Devoid of rational thought or fact...You are the perfect example of liberal arrogance and stupidity.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 3, 2014)

Remember Billy, there are limits to how much we liberals can protect you from involuntary commitment. If you stay on your present path, you'll start presenting an obvious danger to yourself, and we won't be able to keep the men in white coats away from you.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 3, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Remember Billy, there are limits to how much we liberals can protect you from involuntary commitment. If you stay on your present path, you'll start presenting an obvious danger to yourself, and we won't be able to keep the men in white coats away from you.


"With every post, you get dumber. Should we blame substance abuse, senility, or the brain-destroying effects of your cult?"

Seems appropriate to quote a moron to answer this.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 3, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Remember Billy, there are limits to how much we liberals can protect you from involuntary commitment. If you stay on your present path, you'll start presenting an obvious danger to yourself, and we won't be able to keep the men in white coats away from you.
> ...



Oh good -- multiple choice.. I pick "C" or "D" (all of the above).
Lemme think it over...


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 4, 2014)

saveliberty said:


> Let's see, coldest snow filled winter in 50 years, followed this year by another one.  Hey!  I see a trend!


 
Really? Warm winter here.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 4, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Rapid rise in sea ice where? Time to make some accurate comparisons;

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.antarctic.png


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 4, 2014)

mamooth said:


> In less liberal times, folks like Billy and so many of the deniers would have been forcibly institutionalized for being batshit crazy.
> 
> So, you'd think they'd be more appreciative of the liberals. Because of us, they're not in the funny farm. Is it too much to hope for, to get a "thank you"?



"DENIER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" is just another way of saying, "We have no science, we have only 'Consensus' and hysteria"


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 4, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > In less liberal times, folks like Billy and so many of the deniers would have been forcibly institutionalized for being batshit crazy.
> ...



They dont even have consensus (unless you only count alarmists like they do) Their ship is sinking and like rats they are abandoning it.. the rate will increase when the funding to promote the lie dies.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 4, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Only you would miss the obvious 2.2million kl Squared increase over two years ago...


----------



## Crick (Oct 4, 2014)

I mentioned this to you a couple of weeks back but perhaps you missed it.  The abbreviation for kilometer (and it's official) is km, not kl.  Try not to work so HARD at looking like a fool.  Additionally, while written out numerically one can say 2 million km^2, in text, one uses the term "square kilometers".  The value you've actually expressed by saying 2 million kl (sic) squared is 4 trillion kilometers.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> I mentioned this to you a couple of weeks back but perhaps you missed it.  The abbreviation for kilometer (and it's official) is km, not kl.  Try not to work so HARD at looking like a fool.  Additionally, while written out numerically one can say 2 million km^2, in text, one uses the term "square kilometers".  The value you've actually expressed by saying 2 million kl (sic) squared is 4 trillion kilometers.



This is all you got?  Your nit picking because you have nothing else... Yet I conveyed the information clearly enough for even you to understand. I must be doing something right...


----------



## Crick (Oct 4, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> I must be doing something right...



If so, I've yet to see it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 4, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I mentioned this to you a couple of weeks back but perhaps you missed it.  The abbreviation for kilometer (and it's official) is km, not kl.  Try not to work so HARD at looking like a fool.  Additionally, while written out numerically one can say 2 million km^2, in text, one uses the term "square kilometers".  The value you've actually expressed by saying 2 million kl (sic) squared is 4 trillion kilometers.
> ...



LOL. All you have presented is the rants of either a very young adolescent, or someone well over the hill in senility.


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 17, 2014)

2014 is now even more likely to be the next 'hottest year on record'.

NASA has just calculated that this September was the hottest September on record, going back 130 years.

*NASA: September 2014 Hottest In Recorded Weather History*
Weather.com
By Terrell Johnson
Oct 14, 2014
*Last month was the warmest September in historical temperature records that date back more than 130 years, NASA said Sunday in its monthly global temperature report. The global average temperature for September 2014 was 0.77°C (1.38°F) above the 1951-1980 historical average for the month, the agency reported Oct. 12 in its monthly Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index, which shows the temperature anomalies for each month of the year going back to 1880. September 2014 marks the second consecutive record-breaking warmest month, as August 2014 also was the warmest such month in NASA's records. May 2014 also was the hottest on record, NOAA said earlier this summer, while four of the five hottest Mays have occurred in the past five years. Though temperatures for the rest of the year remain to be seen, this year's record-breaking warmth indicates that 2014 could go down as the world's hottest year on record, according to temperature trends identified by NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.
*

This follows a string of months that were the hottest months of that name on record.

Last November, 2013, was the hottest November on record.
This last April was tied for the number one spot with April 2010.
This last May was the hottest May on record.
This last June was the hottest June on record.
This last August was the hottest August on record.
And now September is also the hottest September on record too.

So now September becomes the 38th consecutive September and 355th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last below-average global temperature for September was September 1976 and the last below-average global temperature for any month was February 1985. With the exception of February, every month to date in 2014 has ranked among the four warmest on record for its respective month.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 17, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


 Dam sckrocks, you been acting out again, nit picking and all, you sure ain't got much to say eh?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 17, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> 2014 is now even more likely to be the next 'hottest year on record'.
> 
> NASA has just calculated that this September was the hottest September on record, going back 130 years.
> 
> ...


hey, here in case you don't know my position yet..and in case you don't understand,..BTW, share that with that guy...


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 17, 2014)

jc456 said:


> hey, here in case you don't know my position yet..and in case you don't understand,..BTW, share that with that guy...




Believe me, JustCrazy, I have "_known_" ever since I first encountered your vacuous, trolling, anti-science posts that your "_position_" was pure "_BullShit_". I don't need to "_share_" that awareness with anyone because everybody else (except maybe your denier cult butt-buddies) can also very clearly see the "_BullShit_" nature of your irrational, illogical, and very demented drivel.

Meanwhile, in the real world, this September was the hottest September, globally, in the entire instrumental temperature record. As was August, June, May, and April-(tied). 2014 is almost certain, at this point, to be the next new 'hottest year on record', followed by 2010, 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2013. Right now 13 out of the 14 hottest years on record have happened since the turn of the millenium but after 2014 is confirmed as the hottest, it will mean that 14 out of the 15 hottest years on record will have occurred in the 21st century. So much for these deranged denier cult fantasies about "_global cooling_". LOL.

The astroturfed cult of AGW/CC denial is going down in flames, which is obvious to everyone but the hypnotized rightwingnut devotees who will hold tight to their crackpot dogmas like grim death no matter what the evidence clearly indicates, and the paid trolls for the fossil fuel industry and the Koch brothers who will continue to push the propaganda and pseudo-science intended to prevent or delay any effective action to limit mankind's carbon emissions, as long as they continue to receive pay checks. 

I've always suspected that you, JustCrazy, are one of the paid trolls. Probably getting paid by the post, given how many completely empty meaningless posts you add to every thread. Plus all the very off-topic ones that seem meant to try to derail the thread. Plus repeating every denier cult myth over and over endlessly, no matter how many times they get completely debunked by the actual facts. Very troll-like.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 18, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > hey, here in case you don't know my position yet..and in case you don't understand,..BTW, share that with that guy...
> ...



The Standard NON-answer to all things the alarmists do....  

........KOCH Brothers................. .....................KOCH Brothers.........................................................KOCH Brothers.............................

Why dont you fools blame your inability to do real science and quit fear mongering? The babbling idiot blather is so tiresome... and OLD!


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 18, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


The Standard *completely insane* meaningless drivel that retarded deniers always post....








Billy_Bob said:


> ........KOCH Brothers......................................KOCH Brothers........................................................KOCH Brothers.............................Why dont you fools blame your inability to do real science and quit fear mongering? The babbling idiot blather is so tiresome... and OLD!


Why don't you just admit that you are a clueless ignorant brainwashed idiot stooging for the fossil fuel industry? Your moronic blather is insane but you're too stupid and bamboozled to notice that fact.

Oh, and BTW moron....
*"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort
Scientific American
Dec 23, 2013*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 22, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Now Old Crock playing a victim....  what a pathetic pile of horse crap...  "dark money"  all I can do is laugh at your outright stupidity and lies you hold as truth... You really are a pathetic excuse for a human..


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 23, 2014)

NOAA just released their Global Analysis for September, affirming NASA's conclusions released earlier this month that make September the hottest month on record, and 2014 on track to be the next hottest year on record. More importantly they have found that the last 12 months have been the hottest 12 month period on record, so in a very real way, the Earth has already experienced its next new hottest year on record.

*With records dating back to 1880, the global temperature across the world's land and ocean surfaces for September 2014 was 0.72°C (1.30°F) higher than the 20th century average of 15.0°C (59.0°F), marking the warmest September in the 135-year period of record. Additionally, September 2014 marked the 355th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last below-average global temperature for any month was February 1985. With the exception of February, every month to date in 2014 has been among its four warmest on record, with May, June, August, and September all record warm. The past 12 months - October 2013 through September 2014 - was the warmest 12-month period among all months since records began in 1880, at 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average.*


----------



## SSDD (Oct 23, 2014)

Hottest year ever?  Hell, it isn't even the hottest year since the satellite era began.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 23, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > hey, here in case you don't know my position yet..and in case you don't understand,..BTW, share that with that guy...
> ...


Lets say I go with this info, I don't,but let's say I do..so what? What is it you're afraid of?

Edt: And, how long in the month was it at that temperature?  thirty minutes a day, an hour, two, etc ?

What time of day in the month was the temperature at when it hit these levels?


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 23, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Hottest year ever?  Hell, it isn't even the hottest year since the satellite era began.



So we've got hundreds of thousands of scientists (at least) all around the world who, on the basis of overwhelming evidence from many fields of science and many kinds of measurements, have concluded that the Earth is warming due to the elevated CO2 levels. Then, on the other side, we have some ideologically motivated rightwingnuts like SSooooDDuuumb who cherry-pick data sets, like just the satellite record of a portion of the atmosphere, and often limited time frames, like from 1998 to present, to foolishly deny the warming of our planet that has become completely obvious to most people and almost all scientists.

Here's the complete temperature graph...


----------



## jc456 (Oct 23, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Hottest year ever?  Hell, it isn't even the hottest year since the satellite era began.
> ...


 where are the sites that are used?


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 23, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


What do you imagine you're talking about?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 23, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 The sensors that the temperature readings come from.  Where are they?


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 23, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Your already debunked denier cult myths, about the accuracy of the world temperature records, are worthless garbage based on conspiracy theory ideation and are therefore of no interest to me. Your mental masturbation over sound science that you are seemingly incapable of comprehending has no significance, except to the other crackpot denier cult devotees. Go play with yourself.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 24, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


And, factual!!!!!

And like I thought, you have no knowledge of where the sensors are at.  You are a parrot!!!!! Does Polly want a cracker.  Oh, you are already a cracker.


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 24, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Stupid drivel! As I said, your denier cult myths about the temperature record are retarded anti-science garbage.

*The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatue Study
About the Data Set
The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study has created a preliminary merged data set by combining 1.6 billion temperature reports from 16 preexisting data archives. Whenever possible, we have used raw data rather than previously homogenized or edited data. After eliminating duplicate records, the current archive contains over 39,000 unique stations. This is roughly five times the 7,280 stations found in the Global Historical Climatology Network Monthly data set (GHCN-M) that has served as the focus of many climate studies. The GHCN-M is limited by strict requirements for record length, completeness, and the need for nearly complete reference intervals used to define baselines. We have developed new algorithms that reduce the need to impose these requirements (see methodology), and as such we have intentionally created a more expansive data set.
*
*Summary of Findings*
*Berkeley Earth has just released analysis of land-surface temperature records going back 250 years, about 100 years further than previous studies. The analysis shows that the rise in average world land temperature globe is approximately 1.5 degrees C in the past 250 years, and about 0.9 degrees in the past 50 years. Berkeley Earth also has carefully studied issues raised by skeptics, such as possible biases from urban heating, data selection, poor station quality, and data adjustment. We have demonstrated that these do not unduly bias the results.*


----------



## jc456 (Oct 24, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


you  post this silliness every post for all I care, however, it is useless.  It is all manipulated data.  How many more times do you think you need me to write that out for you?  I don't care!!!!!!! You and your links are BS and you all know it.  Now that is more of an issue than anything for me.  you know you're lying.  But, everytime you post this, I will post that it is manipulated data and inaccurate.  so want to try again?


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 24, 2014)

Just Crazy, old girl, you are getting shrill. No evidence for your silly shit. No links to back up your idiocy. Go ahead and post anything you want, including the pink pig that just flew past your window. Without a link to a credible source, it is just another lie.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 3, 2014)

Global Warming Alert 2014 coldest year on record Poor Richard s News


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 3, 2014)

Ernie S. said:


> Global Warming Alert 2014 coldest year on record Poor Richard s News



And another gullible retard pops up with more demented nonsense.

A link to some rightwingnut's blog, quoting a fossil fuel industry propaganda outlet called the 'Heartland Institute', who claim that from January through May 7th of this year, JUST the USA, not the whole world, supposedly experienced it coldest year in record.

Let's see what the actual experts at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have to say.

*Climate Highlights — year-to-date (January – May)*

*The year-to-date average temperature for the contiguous U.S. was 43.2°F, 0.1°F below the 20th century average, ranking near the middle value in the 120-year period of record. This was the coldest first five months of any year since 1996. *
.
*During the first five months of 2014, above-average temperatureswere widespread in the West. Five states had one of their 10 warmest starts to the year. California's January-May temperature of 55.2°F was 5.0°F above the 20th century average, marking the warmest such period for the state. This bested the previous record, set in 1934, by 0.1°F. *
.
*Below-average January-May temperatures were widespread east of the Rockies. Thirteen states, from the Upper Midwest to the Gulf Coast, had year-to-date temperatures that ranked among the 10 coldest on record. The largest departures from average occurred across the Great Lakes region. No state had five-month temperatures that were record cold.*
*(source - NOAA National Overview - May 2014)*


----------



## jc456 (Nov 3, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Just Crazy, old girl, you are getting shrill. No evidence for your silly shit. No links to back up your idiocy. Go ahead and post anything you want, including the pink pig that just flew past your window. Without a link to a credible source, it is just another lie.


You all crack me up.  I love it when facts don't line up for your side.  here again, info posted on WUWT that just proves my point:

link...David Archibald on Climate and Energy Security Watts Up With That


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 3, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Just Crazy, old girl, you are getting shrill. No evidence for your silly shit. No links to back up your idiocy. Go ahead and post anything you want, including the pink pig that just flew past your window. Without a link to a credible source, it is just another lie.
> ...



LOLOL.....you are soooo gullible......you actually imagine that WattsUpMyButt is a valid source of information rather than the propaganda outlet for the fossil fuel industry that it is....so pathetic....

*the Climate Denier List*
*a list of scientists, real or imagined, pundits and loud mouths*

*David Archibald *
March 14, 2012 

*David Archibald, Geology BA [so technically a scientist] Australia. Geologist with Summa Development Limited. Associated with Australia’s Lavoisier Group, which was established specifically to be skeptical of climate change. The group receives funding from the coal and oil industry.
*
*http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lavoisier_Group*

*http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Archibald.pdf*
*
“There are no deleterious consequences of higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are wholly beneficial,” he added. “Anthropogenic Global Warming is so miniscule that the effect cannot be measured from year to year, and even from generation to generation”

Believes the ‘sun wot dun it’- has written papers that cite each other- “Solar Cycles 24 and 25 and Predicted Climate Response” in Energy and Environment in 2006 , considered to be the worst paper in scientific history [link] uses a few temperature locations and in one case just one that just happen to correlate to solar variance and then uses this as proof that the world is cooling.

Energy and Environment Journal is supposedly a peer reviewed science journal yet is not rated internationally and the publication of choice for sceptics who can’t find a proper journal to publish their work. see here*


----------



## jc456 (Nov 3, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


 dude, I read up on the guy, you don't have to republish his credentials.  I see you're one of those that if you didn't play the sport, you can't comment on the sport.  hahahahahahahahhaha so unrealistic blunderball.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 3, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


The dufus you cited HAS NO CREDENTIALS in climate science. He is one of the paid off liars for the fossil fuel industry.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 3, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


He doesn't have to Isaac.  he did the work.  disprove his work.  Come on now, let's see what you have!!!!!

BTW, that will mean you will need that experiment that shows 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperatures.  Just saying


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 3, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



How about you try to explain "_the work_" he supposedly did, OK little retard? You cited it so presumably you think you understand it. If you can do that, I will show how phony this dude's BS actually is.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 3, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


Why, you don't believe it and challenge it, you prove it wrong!!

Let's see your experts data for 120 PPM of CO2 against temperature!!! LOL


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 3, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


So, as I figured, you can't explain "_the work_" you claimed he had done (in 2011) or what it means to the worldwide scientific consensus on the reality and dangers of AGW/CC. All of his stuff is bogus pseudo-science anyway, but if you can't even explain what he was saying in that article you cited, I'm not bothering to debunk it, you lying troll.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 3, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 It isn't my work, why do i need to explain it.  I expect you to counter the argument with your own data.  you ain't got any so you melt to the floor with the expectation that you can get me.  Nope, I don't fall for those tactics.  You choose to be here, supply the counter argument that opposes the data and supports your side.  Hint, you won't be able to, since your own link validates One of mine. Adding 120PPm of CO2 will not affect temperatures.


----------



## Kosh (Nov 3, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...








People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the  primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.

Then again I have asked the AGW cult to post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate.

Not one has been able to do that..


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 3, 2014)

ROFL this OP is such a retard.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 3, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


You cited it as if it meant something but you are obviously unable to explain what it supposedly meant, but you imagine that I have to debunk something that you don't understand to begin with. Try defending your post instead of wimping out in defeat.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 3, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> ROFL this OP is such a retard.


The OP is scientifically accurate and references its sources.

I'm afraid it is you that is the ignorant brainwashed "_retard_".

*The first nine months of 2014 (January–September) tied with 1998 as the warmest such period on record, with a combined global land and ocean average surface temperature 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average of 14.1°C (57.5°F). If 2014 maintains this temperature departure from average for the remainder of the year, it will be the warmest calendar year on record. The past 12 months—October 2013–September 2014—was the warmest 12-month period among all months since records began in 1880, at 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average. This breaks the previous record of +0.68°C (+1.22°F) set for the periods September 1997–August 1998, August 2009–July 2010; and September 2013–August 2014.
(source - NOAA - Global Analysis - 2014)*


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 4, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > ROFL this OP is such a retard.
> ...


citing predictions from POS liars is not the same as citing scientific evidence...  Besides warmer is better, dumb ass.


----------



## Crick (Nov 4, 2014)

Predictions?  What predictions?  Those are temperature observations BrownEye.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> Predictions?  What predictions?  Those are temperature observations BrownEye.


Yeah cause, the statement "If 2014 maintains this temperature departure from average for the remainder of the year, it will be the warmest calendar year on record" isn't a prediction...   Let me guess, English isn't your first language is it?


----------



## Crick (Nov 4, 2014)

Let me guess, it isn't yours.  The statement is a mathematical extrapolation.  And note the word "If".


----------



## jc456 (Nov 4, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 So it figures you can't offer up any challenging data, so it isn't necessary for me to go into an explanation just because you asked.If you, blunderhead, oppose or discount the data as inaccurate, then by all means let's see how your resources think CO2 behaves.  See the link you gave me earlier supported my post.  In all seriousness, WiNNiNg


----------



## jc456 (Nov 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> Let me guess, it isn't yours.  The statement is a mathematical extrapolation.  And note the word "If".


 Jimminie, the use of the word 'if' is what makes it a prediction.  this is just too amusing.  Now you don't even know what a prediction is.  Holy crap batman what a k00k.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 4, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Predictions?  What predictions?  Those are temperature observations BrownEye.
> ...


 what a k00k, they used the word 'if'  well duh, stoopid what do you think you use that word for?  truly


----------



## jc456 (Nov 4, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > ROFL this OP is such a retard.
> ...


 snoozing.............................dude this is useless information,  why don't you insist on seeing the untouched data instead of the bias adjusted data.  I've provided that data in here before showing actual temperatures and it ain't even close to this shite.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 4, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Oh are they back to measuring temperatures on tar roofs next to running motors again?


----------



## mamooth (Nov 4, 2014)

RK, is there any debunked denier goofery that you haven't fallen for? All you can do is parrot these odd conspiracy fables. 

Like most deniers, you lack the logical proficiency necessary to resist cult manipulation, and that left you an easy mark. For your sake, stay away from the Home Shopping Channel.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 4, 2014)

mamooth said:


> RK, is there any debunked denier goofery that you haven't fallen for? All you can do is parrot these odd conspiracy fables.
> 
> Like most deniers, you lack the logical proficiency necessary to resist cult manipulation, and that left you an easy mark. For your sake, stay away from the Home Shopping Channel.


Do I have to school you on the carbon cycle again?


----------



## mamooth (Nov 4, 2014)

Oh, please do. Some of us live for the amusement we get watching cranks sputter out their theories.

So, let us all know how the carbon cycle really works, and how the vast global socialist conspiracy is covering up the truth.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 4, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


When dumb-shit denier cultist like yourself call all of the very competent scientists at the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admisistration "_POS liars_", it is a sure sign that you are kind of insane and very retarded and definitely a rightwingnut troll.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 4, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 But accurate!!!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 4, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > RK, is there any debunked denier goofery that you haven't fallen for? All you can do is parrot these odd conspiracy fables.
> ...



Someone should school you on basic science. Starting at about the third grade level.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 4, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Oh, please do. Some of us live for the amusement we get watching cranks sputter out their theories.
> 
> So, let us all know how the carbon cycle really works, and how the vast global socialist conspiracy is covering up the truth.


Plants are a conspiracy?  ARE YOU MENTALLY HANDICAPPED?


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 4, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


rofl  Example of clueless: Old Rocks.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 4, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 I have to believe it is his jones.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 4, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


No, just insane and brainwashed, just like you.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 4, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, please do. Some of us live for the amusement we get watching cranks sputter out their theories.
> ...


Not what he said, which makes you the mentally handicapped one......or, as seems more apt, the brainwashed rightwingnut retard.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 4, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


YES OR NO DUMB ASS, HE ASKED ME TO.. AND I QUOTE... "let us all know how a vast global socialist *conspiracy* is is covering up the truth about how the carbon cycle works."  Plants are a part of the carbon cycle.. OR ARE YOU DENYING THAT?  Thus he is stating that there is a vast conspiracy about plants, and asking me to show proof.  Or are you saying he was making shit up?  Are you calling a global warming fud poster a liar?


----------



## mamooth (Nov 4, 2014)

No, we're calling _you_ a liar, RK, because even you aren't dumb enough to miss the sarcasm. You're just lying.

Now, when you locate your courage and stop it with the weird evasions, you can start schooling us on the carbon cycle, as you bragged you could do. I'm not sure why you're so deadset on talking about the carbon cycle, but that's something you need to explain.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 5, 2014)

mamooth said:


> No, we're calling _you_ a liar, RK, because even you aren't dumb enough to miss the sarcasm. You're just lying.
> 
> Now, when you locate your courage and stop it with the weird evasions, you can start schooling us on the carbon cycle, as you bragged you could do. I'm not sure why you're so deadset on talking about the carbon cycle, but that's something you need to explain.



Lying about what? You pick... either you are lying about wanting to understand the carbon cycle, or you are being sarcastic because one would have to be an idiot to not already understand it.  Yet your so called "science" requires that the carbon cycle somehow become overwhelmed, even thought it never has in the presence of life.  Further, your "science" also requires ignorance of what happens to other greenhouse gases as they are displaced in the atmosphere, as has been repeatedly explained to you.

Face it, Gore's hockey stick gave you a raging hard on and now you are in denial.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 5, 2014)

Excellent. You've started to touch on making a point! I knew you had it in you. Let's keep going.

Tell us more about the carbon cycle being overwhelmed, and why it's impossible. We directly measure CO2 concentrations increasing, and know from the isotope ratios that humans are causing it. Thus, it seems rather peculiar of you to claim something we directly observe isn't happening. Can you explain the discrepancy between your claims and real-world observation?

Also please tell us about greenhouse gases being "displaced in the atmosphere"? I've never heard of such a thing. Are you claiming that CO2 physically pushes methane out of the atmosphere? Just what are you claiming? And what's the physical mechanism behind it?

This is all new groundbreaking science on your part. If you can back it up, you've got a Nobel prize for sure.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 5, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Excellent. You've started to touch on making a point! I knew you had it in you. Let's keep going.
> 
> Tell us more about the carbon cycle being overwhelmed, and why it's impossible. We directly measure CO2 concentrations increasing, and know from the isotope ratios that humans are causing it. Thus, it seems rather peculiar of you to claim something we directly observe isn't happening. Can you explain the discrepancy between your claims and real-world observation?
> 
> ...


On the first one, lets start with you telling the class what happens to the vast majority of plants in the presence of CO2.  Then tell us what happens when there is more CO2 and what happens when there is restricted CO2.

On the second one, lets start with you telling the class how two molecules can occupy the same location at the same time.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 5, 2014)

Most plants in the real world are unaffected by a CO2 increase. As that's the actual science, it's understandable you probably missed it. Many factors limit plant growth, CO2 being just one. If CO2 wasn't the limiting factor, and it usually isn't, then increasing it has no effect.

Now, there are some effects. Choking vines grow faster with more CO2. More vines, less trees. Poison Ivy especially loves CO2. Maybe you can use that as a selling point, "We need more Poison Ivy!".

However, one wonders why you bring that topic up at all, since it's not relevant to the point that we directly measure a CO2 increase, thus proving the carbon cycle _is_ being "overwhelmed".

On the second, two molecules can't occupy the same space. Given that the atmosphere has vast amounts of empty space between molecules, I have to wonder why you bring up yet another irrelevant point.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 5, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Most plants in the real world are unaffected by a CO2 increase. As that's the actual science, it's understandable you probably missed it. Many factors limit plant growth, CO2 being just one. If CO2 wasn't the limiting factor, and it usually isn't, then increasing it has no effect.
> 
> Now, there are some effects. Choking vines grow faster with more CO2. More vines, less trees. Poison Ivy especially loves CO2. Maybe you can use that as a selling point, "We need more Poison Ivy!".
> 
> ...


    

I can't believe you wrote this.


----------



## westwall (Nov 5, 2014)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Most plants in the real world are unaffected by a CO2 increase. As that's the actual science, it's understandable you probably missed it. Many factors limit plant growth, CO2 being just one. If CO2 wasn't the limiting factor, and it usually isn't, then increasing it has no effect.
> ...






Believe it.  mammy's understanding of the physical world is laughable indeed.  He's supposedly a "nucular watch officer" in the US Navy.  Of course that appellation doesn't exist in the US Navy but mammy will never admit that.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 5, 2014)

More self-delusional anti-science nonsense and myths from the denier cult crackpots.

*High CO2 Makes Crops Less Nutritious*
*Climate change could increase deficiencies in zinc and iron, new study suggests.*
*National Geographic News*
PUBLISHED MAY 7, 2014

*Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production*
*New Scientist*

*Climate change surprise: High carbon dioxide levels can retard plant growth, study reveals
Stanford University News Release*


----------



## jc456 (Nov 5, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> More self-delusional anti-science nonsense and myths from the denier cult crackpots.
> 
> *High CO2 Makes Crops Less Nutritious
> Climate change could increase deficiencies in zinc and iron, new study suggests.
> ...


 
I will say they are consistent with their nonsense.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 5, 2014)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Most plants in the real world are unaffected by a CO2 increase. As that's the actual science, it's understandable you probably missed it. Many factors limit plant growth, CO2 being just one. If CO2 wasn't the limiting factor, and it usually isn't, then increasing it has no effect.
> ...


I can't decide which one is funnier, the one about CO2 retarding plant growth or the one about CO2 increasing the density of molecules in our atmosphere.  ROFL


----------



## westwall (Nov 5, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> More self-delusional anti-science nonsense and myths from the denier cult crackpots.
> 
> *High CO2 Makes Crops Less Nutritious*
> *Climate change could increase deficiencies in zinc and iron, new study suggests.*
> ...







So, you have biased "scientists" pushing biased "studies", or you can *watch* the difference.



There are THOUSANDS of these videos showing the beneficial effects of CO2 on plant growth.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 5, 2014)

Well, by Dr. Spencer, October comes in at 0.37. Looks like 2014 is going to go down as the warmest year on record.

UAH Global Temperature Update for October 2014 0.37 deg. C Roy Spencer PhD


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 5, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Most plants in the real world are unaffected by a CO2 increase. As that's the actual science, it's understandable you probably missed it. Many factors limit plant growth, CO2 being just one. If CO2 wasn't the limiting factor, and it usually isn't, then increasing it has no effect.
> ...



What is funny, you poor retarded fool, is that no one ever said that "_CO2 increases the density of molecules in our atmosphere_". That's all your befuddled inability to comprehend what was said to you in response to your moronic meaningless 'questions' about "_what happens to other greenhouse gases as they are displaced in the atmosphere_" and "_lets start with you telling the class how two molecules can occupy the same location at the same time_". What you make obvious is that you have no idea what you're talking about, and you have zero knowledge or understanding of physics.

There is at this point a considerable amount of scientific research that shows that, although increased CO2 up to a certain level can temporarily increase plant growth in some plants (but not all) the longer term effect of significantly increased CO2 is either, in some cases, to inhibit plant growth, or, in other cases, to reduce the nutritional value of the food. As for as your knee-jerk denier cult rejection of this science in favor of your propaganda myths, that is just another indication that you are either a brainwashed rightwingnut retard or a paid troll pushing misinformation, pseudo-science and lies concocted by the fossil fuel industry.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 5, 2014)

westwall said:


> So, you have biased "scientists" pushing biased "studies", or you can *watch* the difference.



Poor Westwall is confusing the lab with the real world. It's a common denier logic failing. They don't really understand how life outside the ivory tower works.

In the lab experiments he cites, the plants have an abundance of everything they need. Thus, CO2 is a limiting factor.

In the real world, that's not how it works. Other things are usually the limiting factor. Hence, CO2 has a highly variable affect.

Even when CO2 does increase growth, not all the effects are good. For example, when vines grow much faster, they choke trees and kill them, so the total carbon sequestration might go down. When weeds grow faster, crop yields decline.

Myself, I noticed the poison ivy was crazy bad this year. I'll see if that pattern holds, or if it was just a favorable climate year for poison ivy.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 5, 2014)

westwall said:


> mammy's understanding of the physical world is laughable indeed. He's supposedly a "nucular watch officer" in the US Navy.  Of course that appellation doesn't exist in the US Navy but mammy will never admit that.



Reported for quote doctoring. And it's not for the first time. I never said "nucular watch officer", and Westwall knows it. For some reason, he thinks he's a precious little snowflake that the normal board rules don't apply to.

Oh, I'll also need to let the military forum know that he's gone back to his vet-spitting ways. Westwall, you are invited to join in and defend your indefensible behavior.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 5, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


ROFL you are so retarded.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 5, 2014)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > So, you have biased "scientists" pushing biased "studies", or you can *watch* the difference.
> ...


ROFL yeah lets eliminate all CO2 and bring back an ICE age so poison ivy won't grow so damn fast.  ROFL


----------



## mamooth (Nov 5, 2014)

Someone who didn't suck hard at both logic and science would understand the craziness of claiming we have to heat the earth now to avert an ice age in 20,000 years. It's like claiming you have to start running the furnace full blast in July so that the house will be warm in winter. It's so dang stupid, you have to wonder if the person saying it is capable of feeding themselves.

However, that's still not as stupid as you claiming CO2 "displaced" other gases from the atmosphere. That's in the running for the single dumbest thing I've ever read here.

And, for the third time (you seem to have a habit of evading simple questions), explain to everyone how the observed increase in CO2 levels squares with your whackaloon claim that the the CO2 cycle can't be "overwhelmed." I mean, we know it was "overwhelmed", because we directly measure it being "overwhelmed".


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 5, 2014)

Looking at the word 'year' as meaning simply 'a 12 month period of time', and uncoupling it from the arbitrary Jan-Dec Western calender framework, it turns out that the Earth has already just experienced its hottest year on record in the period from last October to this past September, as NOAA announced last month. The previous record for the hottest twelve months on record, among all of the possible twelve month periods since 1880, was also just set the previous month. The previous record holder was the period from September 2013 to August 2014. Before that it was a tie between a 12 month period in 2010 and one in 1998. 

The next *NOAA State of the Climate Global Ananysis Report* will be out in a week or so and it will be interesting to see if this string of record 12 month periods continues. It will also be interesting to see what happens if the nascent El Niño starts significantly affecting surface air temperatures by bringing back up to the surface some of the heat energy that the recent string of La Niña conditions took down into the ocean depths. In any case, at this point, it seems almost irrelevant whether the 2014 '_calender year'_ becomes the hottest (calender) year on record (which it almost certainly will) or 'technically' only the second hottest (calender) year on record, which would be the *only* other possible outcome, at this point.

*The past 12 months—October 2013–September 2014—was the warmest 12-month period among all months since records began in 1880....With the exception of February, every month to date in 2014 has been among its four warmest on record, with May, June, August, and September all record warm.*
*(NOAA - Global Analysis - September 2014)*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 5, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Looking at the word 'year' as meaning simply 'a 12 month period of time', and uncoupling it from the arbitrary Jan-Dec Western calender framework, it turns out that the Earth has already just experienced its hottest year on record in the period from last October to this past September, as NOAA announced last month. The previous record for the hottest twelve months on record, among all of the possible twelve month periods since 1880, was also just set the previous month. The previous record holder was the period from September 2013 to August 2014. Before that it was a tie between a 12 month period in 2010 and one in 1998.
> 
> The next *NOAA State of the Climate Global Ananysis Report* will be out in a week or so and it will be interesting to see if this string of record 12 month periods continues. It will also be interesting to see what happens if the nascent El Niño starts significantly affecting surface air temperatures by bringing back up to the surface some of the heat energy that the recent string of La Niña conditions took down into the ocean depths. In any case, at this point, it seems almost irrelevant whether the 2014 '_calender year'_ becomes the hottest (calender) year on record (which it almost certainly will) or 'technically' only the second hottest (calender) year on record, which would be the *only* other possible outcome, at this point.
> 
> ...




Two things ...

First; 1880 was NOT THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD.. So this benchmark, if it were real, means shit (You also forgot to mention that Dr Roy Spencer used homogenized NOAA data. IT is therefore suspect and he notes that in his remarks. Funny how you fail to point it out.)  Spencer notes the data is suspect but you omit that point..

Spencer has done other data sets and they do not show what this one does. This means it is an outlier. Another point you fail to mention...


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 5, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Looking at the word 'year' as meaning simply 'a 12 month period of time', and uncoupling it from the arbitrary Jan-Dec Western calender framework, it turns out that the Earth has already just experienced its hottest year on record in the period from last October to this past September, as NOAA announced last month. The previous record for the hottest twelve months on record, among all of the possible twelve month periods since 1880, was also just set the previous month. The previous record holder was the period from September 2013 to August 2014. Before that it was a tie between a 12 month period in 2010 and one in 1998.
> ...


My post and the quote from NOAA have absolutely no connection to Dr. Roy Spencer. You are a troll living in some insane denier cult delusional fantasy-land who can't even keep track of which lies you're telling now.

BTW moron, 1880 doesn't need to be "_THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD_" for the temperature trend over the last 134 years to be very significant, as the world scientific community has been warning us.





*(source)*

Moreover, scientific research has extended our understanding of the Earth's temperature record far beyond just the limited instrumental record, back to the beginning of the holocene and even farther.





*Figure 1 Blue curve: Global temperature reconstruction from proxy data of Marcott et al, Science 2013. Shown here is the RegEM version – significant differences between the variants with different averaging methods arise only towards the end, where the number of proxy series decreases. This does not matter since the recent temperature evolution is well known from instrumental measurements, shown in red (global temperature from the instrumental HadCRU data). Graph: Klaus Bitterman.






Figure 3 The last two thousand years from Figure 1, in comparison to the PAGES 2k reconstruction (green), which was recently described here in detail. Graph: Klaus Bitterman. 
(source)
*


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 6, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Someone who didn't suck hard at both logic and science would understand the craziness of claiming we have to heat the earth now to avert an ice age in 20,000 years. It's like claiming you have to start running the furnace full blast in July so that the house will be warm in winter. It's so dang stupid, you have to wonder if the person saying it is capable of feeding themselves.
> 
> However, that's still not as stupid as you claiming CO2 "displaced" other gases from the atmosphere. That's in the running for the single dumbest thing I've ever read here.
> 
> And, for the third time (you seem to have a habit of evading simple questions), explain to everyone how the observed increase in CO2 levels squares with your whackaloon claim that the the CO2 cycle can't be "overwhelmed." I mean, we know it was "overwhelmed", because we directly measure it being "overwhelmed".


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 6, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Someone who didn't suck hard at both logic and science would understand the craziness of claiming we have to heat the earth now to avert an ice age in 20,000 years. It's like claiming you have to start running the furnace full blast in July so that the house will be warm in winter. It's so dang stupid, you have to wonder if the person saying it is capable of feeding themselves.
> ...



An apt self-reflection of your insanity but otherwise a vacuous kindergarden response.

You seem to be an embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

*The Dunning-Kruger effect occurs where people fail to adequately assess their level of competence — or specifically, their incompetence — at a task and thus consider themselves much more competent than everyone else. This lack of awareness is attributed to their lower level of competence robbing them of the ability to critically analyse their performance, leading to a significant overestimate of themselves. Put more crudely, they're too stupid to realize they're stupid*.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 6, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


ROFL you're a fucking retard.


----------



## Crick (Nov 6, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Someone who didn't suck hard at both logic and science would understand the craziness of claiming we have to heat the earth now to avert an ice age in 20,000 years. It's like claiming you have to start running the furnace full blast in July so that the house will be warm in winter. It's so dang stupid, you have to wonder if the person saying it is capable of feeding themselves.





mamooth said:


> However, that's still not as stupid as you claiming CO2 "displaced" other gases from the atmosphere. That's in the running for the single dumbest thing I've ever read here.





mamooth said:


> And, for the third time (you seem to have a habit of evading simple questions), explain to everyone how the observed increase in CO2 levels squares with your whackaloon claim that the the CO2 cycle can't be "overwhelmed." I mean, we know it was "overwhelmed", because we directly measure it being "overwhelmed".





RKMBrown said:


>



So, you have no to any of his questions, no response to any of his comments.  Got it.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 6, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


More projection from another sad victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect who is too stupid to be capable of realizing just how completely idiotic he is.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 7, 2014)

Crick said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Someone who didn't suck hard at both logic and science would understand the craziness of claiming we have to heat the earth now to avert an ice age in 20,000 years. It's like claiming you have to start running the furnace full blast in July so that the house will be warm in winter. It's so dang stupid, you have to wonder if the person saying it is capable of feeding themselves.
> ...


How does one respond to the idiocy that believes increased parts per million of CO2 will increase the number of molecules per square inch in our atmosphere?  How does one respond to such foolish notions as that?  Do you even know what the name of the green house gas is that is the largest portion of our atmosphere?  Can you even fathom that our atmosphere is not in a glass container?  Do you not understand what a gas is?  How does one respond to the utter lunacy of people that declare CO2 is bad for plant life?


----------



## Crick (Nov 7, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Speaking of lunacy...

what do you say to someone making passionate rejoinders to arguments no one is presenting?


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 7, 2014)

Crick said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Now you are claiming that no one is arguing that human activity is causing global warming via increased amounts CO2 and further that the increased amounts of CO2 are "damaging" plants?  WTF is wrong with your brain?


----------



## Crick (Nov 7, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Someone who didn't suck hard at both logic and science would understand the craziness of claiming we have to heat the earth now to avert an ice age in 20,000 years. It's like claiming you have to start running the furnace full blast in July so that the house will be warm in winter. It's so dang stupid, you have to wonder if the person saying it is capable of feeding themselves.





mamooth said:


> However, that's still not as stupid as you claiming CO2 "displaced" other gases from the atmosphere. That's in the running for the single dumbest thing I've ever read here.





mamooth said:


> And, for the third time (you seem to have a habit of evading simple questions), explain to everyone how the observed increase in CO2 levels squares with your whackaloon claim that the the CO2 cycle can't be "overwhelmed." I mean, we know it was "overwhelmed", because we directly measure it being "overwhelmed".





RKMBrown said:


>





Crick said:


> So, you have no [response] to any of his questions, no response to any of his comments.  Got it.





RKMBrown said:


> How does one respond to the idiocy that believes increased parts per million of CO2 will increase the number of molecules per square inch in our atmosphere?  How does one respond to such foolish notions as that?  Do you even know what the name of the green house gas is that is the largest portion of our atmosphere?  Can you even fathom that our atmosphere is not in a glass container?  Do you not understand what a gas is?  How does one respond to the utter lunacy of people that declare CO2 is bad for plant life?





Crick said:


> Speaking of lunacy...
> 
> what do you say to someone making passionate rejoinders to arguments no one is presenting?





RKMBrown said:


> Now you are claiming that no one is arguing that human activity is causing global warming via increased amounts CO2 and further that the increased amounts of CO2 are "damaging" plants?  WTF is wrong with your brain?




In post 10124023 you make no comment about the contention that human activity is causing global warming from increased CO2.

I have heard no one claim that increased CO2 is damaging plants.  I have certainly heard that climate change is bad for plants - native flora grows where the environment and climate are suited for it.  Make the climate unsuited for a plant and it will do poorly.  And, of course, adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes the planet to warm and that alters the climate.

The rest of the comments in post 10124023 are such nonsense I can't even tell what you're talking about.

Molecules do not occupy square inches.  They could occupy cubic inches but that's not what you said.

I have never heard anyone contend that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases its density (if that is what you were actually trying to say).

The greenhouse gas with the greatest effect is water vapor.  Everyone here has known that for a great long while.  But human activity has not directly affected water vapor levels.  Indirectly, of course, it has, as increasing temperatures lead to increased humidity.  However, the lifetime of water vapor in the atmosphere is a matter of days at most, so its behavior in several ways is NOT analogous to that of CO2.

Everyone here is also fully and long aware that the greenhouse effect taking place in the Earth's atmosphere is not the same process that causes a glass greenhouse to warm.

Everyone here - even SSDD - is fully aware of the basic nature of gases.

All you've succeeded in doing is making it clear to everyone here that you are a great long ways behind the conversations taking place.  You might want to review a few of the threads before rejoining the conversation, in order to make certain your comments are a bit more pertinent and apropos.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 7, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Nope, wrong again as usual, moron. Human activities, like burning CO2 emitting fossil fuels and deforestation, are definitely causing global warming by raising the natural pre-industrial CO2 levels of about 280ppm by over 43% to over 400ppm. Nobody said different. The "_passionate rejoinders to arguments no one is presenting_" that you are making and that Crick was referring to, involve idiotic statements that you have just made, like: "_How does one respond to the idiocy that believes increased parts per million of CO2 will increase the number of molecules per square inch in our atmosphere?_", which nobody ever claimed. Either you're a troll making up lies to bug and distract people, or you are a retard with ZERO reading comprehension skills.

CO2 is good for plants at its current concentration. Increasing concentrations of CO2 either have no effect (C4 photosynthesis) or it winds up being less good for the plants in one way or another. Your assumption that because something is necessary and beneficial (like CO2 for plants) then more (and more and more....) of it *must* be better, is very stupid. A certain amount of salt, for example, is necessary and beneficial to humans but try ingesting a hundred times as much daily for a while and see what happens to you (please).


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 7, 2014)

How does one believe that someone can have an IQ of more than two digits and speak of the number of molecules per square inch in the atmosphere?


----------



## Vigilante (Nov 7, 2014)

Global Warming...it's all about the...







It's ALWAYS BEEN about the money!


----------



## Crick (Nov 7, 2014)

Did you ever see Bambi?  Remember what Thumper's  Mom told him?  She said, "If you don't have something nice (or meaningful) to say, don't say anything at all cause you're wasting everyone's fucking time".


----------



## Vigilante (Nov 7, 2014)

*Algore: We Have Ten Years Left Before Earth Cooks*
*January 27, 2006 *
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Try this one from yesterday's stack. I don't know if you people know this or not, but Al Gore has been out at the Sundance Film Festival out there in Park City, Utah. This is one of Robert Redford's big do's, and apparently Al Gore is working on a movie that -- what is the name of this movie? Oh, that's right, "An Inconvenient Truth," and the movie will document his efforts to raise alarm on the effects of global warming, and so he brought Tipper and the kids out there.




He's attending parties and posing for pictures with his fans. He's enjoying macaroni and cheese at the Discovery Channel's soir?e. He's palling around with Laurie David of Curb Your Enthusiasm, who is the husband of Larry David, who drives the Prius and then flies the GV. Larry David says, "You know, Al is a funny guy, but he's also a very serious guy who believes humans may have only 10 years left to save the planet from turning into a total frying pan."
Now, the last time I heard some liberal talk about "ten years" it was 1988, Ted Danson. We had ten years to save the oceans; we were all going to pay the consequences, which would result in our death. Now Al Gore says we've got ten years. Ten years left to save the planet from a scorching. Okay, we're going to start counting. This is January 27th, 2006. We will begin the count, ladies and gentlemen. This is just... You have to love these people -- from afar, and from a purely observational point of view.
END TRANSCRIPT

ONE year, EIGTHY DAYS to go!...


----------



## Crick (Nov 7, 2014)

That the Earth has reached a tipping point and that it is not longer possible to save ourselves from hitting a 2C rise is quite likely.  Recent statements from the UN are quite clear about this.  We've put this off far too long.  And try to remember your basic English: "Ten years left to save the Earth from turning into a total frying pan" (a quote from Rush Limbaugh, not Al Gore) is perfectly applicable to the current situation.

And, BTW, it's spelled  E-I-G-H-T-Y


----------



## Vigilante (Nov 7, 2014)

Crick said:


> That the Earth has reached a tipping point and that it is not longer possible to save ourselves from hitting a 2C rise is quite likely.  Recent statements from the UN are quite clear about this.  We've put this off far too long.  And try to remember your basic English: "Ten years left to save the Earth from turning into a total frying pan" (a quote from Rush Limbaugh, not Al Gore) is perfectly applicable to the current situation.
> 
> And, BTW, it's spelled  E-I-G-H-T-Y



OCD much?....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 7, 2014)

Crick said:


> That the Earth has reached a tipping point and that it is not longer possible to save ourselves from hitting a 2C rise is quite likely.  Recent statements from the UN are quite clear about this.  We've put this off far too long.  And try to remember your basic English: "Ten years left to save the Earth from turning into a total frying pan" (a quote from Rush Limbaugh, not Al Gore) is perfectly applicable to the current situation.
> 
> And, BTW, it's spelled  E-I-G-H-T-Y



120PPM of CO2 causes a 2 degree temperature increase

Are you sure?

Does a 60PPM increase raise it 1 degree?

What does your lab work show?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 7, 2014)

Crick said:


> That the Earth has reached a tipping point and that it is not longer possible to save ourselves from hitting a 2C rise is quite likely.  Recent statements from the UN are quite clear about this.  We've put this off far too long.  And try to remember your basic English: "Ten years left to save the Earth from turning into a total frying pan" (a quote from Rush Limbaugh, not Al Gore) is perfectly applicable to the current situation.
> 
> And, BTW, it's spelled  E-I-G-H-T-Y


gawd the bull shit is deep with this post...


----------



## Crick (Nov 8, 2014)

So, again, none of you have anything worth reading.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 8, 2014)

Crick said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Someone who didn't suck hard at both logic and science would understand the craziness of claiming we have to heat the earth now to avert an ice age in 20,000 years. It's like claiming you have to start running the furnace full blast in July so that the house will be warm in winter. It's so dang stupid, you have to wonder if the person saying it is capable of feeding themselves.
> ...


ROFL we're all gonna die, god please bring us an ice age... ROFL


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 8, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


ROFLOOOOFOOFLLOLO


----------



## Crick (Nov 8, 2014)

Your comments are inappropriate responses to our posts.  You failed to address anything we said.  If you were attempting to recover from the embarrassment, I'm afraid you failed.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 8, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> How does one believe that someone can have an IQ of more than two digits and speak of the number of molecules per square inch in the atmosphere?


ROFL you heard it here folks there are no molecules in the atmosphere. ROFLLLLLL


----------



## Crick (Nov 8, 2014)

Do you not realize how ignorant these comments make you look?


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 8, 2014)

Crick said:


> Do you not realize how ignorant these comments make you look?


You've got the intelligence of a cricket.


----------



## Crick (Nov 8, 2014)

You are so not worth the effort.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 8, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > How does one believe that someone can have an IQ of more than two digits and speak of the number of molecules per square inch in the atmosphere?
> ...



Browneyes, you measure atmosphere by volume, cubic, not square. Are you attempting to outdumb Frankie Boy? You are definately in the running.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 8, 2014)

So far this year, in 2014, April was tied with April of 2010 as the hottest April on record, with records dating back to 1880. May and June were both the hottest May and June on record, and August and September were also the hottest August and September on record. With the exception of February, every other month of this year to date in 2014 has been among its four warmest on record. Now October has come in as the hottest October in the 36 year satellite record, tied with October of 2012. Since every year since 1998 has been warmer than every year before 1998, there are no years in the instrumental temperature records going back to 1880 that could have a warmer October than this last one. As NOAA will no doubt announce shortly.

*Global Temperature Trend Update: October 2014 tied as the warmest October in the 36-year global satellite temperature record*
*Notes on data released Nov. 4, 2014:*
*October 2014 tied as the warmest October in the 36-year global satellite temperature record, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. With a global average temperature that was 0.37 C (about 0.67 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms, October 2014 tied October 2012.*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 8, 2014)

WOW over 90% of the Continental US will be 20+ degrees below normal by Monday and the warmist morons still think its the hottest year ever... (well since record keeping began which is slightly over 135 years and the size of a molecule of hydrogen in comparison to the length the earth has existed.)


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 8, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> So far this year, in 2014, April was tied with April of 2010 as the hottest April on record, with records dating back to 1880. May and June were both the hottest May and June on record, and August and September were also the hottest August and September on record. With the exception of February, every other month of this year to date in 2014 has been among its four warmest on record. Now October has come in as the hottest October in the 36 year satellite record, tied with October of 2012. Since every year since 1998 has been warmer than every year before 1998, there are no years in the instrumental temperature records going back to 1880 that could have a warmer October than this last one. As NOAA will no doubt announce shortly.
> 
> *Global Temperature Trend Update: October 2014 tied as the warmest October in the 36-year global satellite temperature record*
> *Notes on data released Nov. 4, 2014:*
> *October 2014 tied as the warmest October in the 36-year global satellite temperature record, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. With a global average temperature that was 0.37 C (about 0.67 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms, October 2014 tied October 2012.*



And 1.2 Deg C is manufactured bogus crap due to homogenization and alterations of the record....  In other words.. MADE UP CRAP!


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 8, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> WOW over 90% of the Continental US will be 20+ degrees below normal by Monday and the warmist morons still think its the hottest year ever... (well since record keeping began which is slightly over 135 years and the size of a molecule of hydrogen in comparison to the length the earth has existed.)


Well yeah, retard, GLOBALLY it is still the hottest year on record. In fact, the hottest twelve month period (a year) on record, compared to all twelve month periods since at least 1880, just ended in September. It is still almost certain that the calender year of 2014 will also be the hottest calender year on record.

Like most of the denier cult dimwits posting here, you seem to imagine that a bit of winter weather in parts of the USA somehow reflects what is happening on the rest of the planet. And you're stupid and clueless enough to ignore the fact that scientists have derived temperature records from proxie data going back tens of thousands of years


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 8, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > So far this year, in 2014, April was tied with April of 2010 as the hottest April on record, with records dating back to 1880. May and June were both the hottest May and June on record, and August and September were also the hottest August and September on record. With the exception of February, every other month of this year to date in 2014 has been among its four warmest on record. Now October has come in as the hottest October in the 36 year satellite record, tied with October of 2012. Since every year since 1998 has been warmer than every year before 1998, there are no years in the instrumental temperature records going back to 1880 that could have a warmer October than this last one. As NOAA will no doubt announce shortly.
> ...


Crackpot denier cult conspiracy theory involving tens of thousands of scientists worldwide - completely insane!


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 9, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Sigh you know I meant cubic. Duh.


----------



## Crick (Nov 9, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Yet your so called "science" requires that the carbon cycle somehow become overwhelmed, even thought it never has in the presence of life.





RKMBrown said:


> Further, your "science" also requires ignorance of what happens to other greenhouse gases as they are displaced in the atmosphere, as has been repeatedly explained to you.



Okay, you meant cubic.  How about explaining what you meant with these two statements?


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 9, 2014)

Crick said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Yet your so called "science" requires that the carbon cycle somehow become overwhelmed, even thought it never has in the presence of life.
> ...


Which part of carbon cycle confused you?  What part of atmospheric pressure confuses you?


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 9, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


That's not an explanation of what you imagined those statements of yours meant, moron. The rest of us understand the carbon cycle and atmospheric physics just fine. It is you who has made nonsensical statements about both. Explain yourself or admit that you're a clueless retard blowing smoke about topics you know nothing about.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 9, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Other than mistyping square when I meant cubic what statement did I make that was wrong?  Or are you incapable of writing a cogent sentence?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 9, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > WOW over 90% of the Continental US will be 20+ degrees below normal by Monday and the warmist morons still think its the hottest year ever... (well since record keeping began which is slightly over 135 years and the size of a molecule of hydrogen in comparison to the length the earth has existed.)
> ...



WINNING!!!   its what we do best with facts....  your flap is yapping but its crap comin out..


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 9, 2014)

..and by "globally" they mean adding the "warming" that was eaten by the deep, deep oceans


----------



## Crick (Nov 9, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Which part of carbon cycle confused you?  What part of atmospheric pressure confuses you?




Please explain what you meant by the carbon cycle being overwhelmed.  I am familiar with the carbon cycle.  I am unaware of anyone suggesting that it has been or will be "overwhelmed" and so I have no idea to what you refer.

And then, please explain what displacement of greenhouse gases you're talking about.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 9, 2014)

Crick said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


You stated and I quote, "the Earth has reached a tipping point..."  You also stated "it is no longer possible to save ourselves."  You stated, "we've put this off far too long."

Then you claim to understand the carbon cycle.... but you ignore it completely.  You claim to understand displacement of greenhouse gases, but then ask me to explain it to you.

When you change the parts per million of one green house gas that change affects the parts per million of other green house gases.  Why?  Because two molecules can't occupy the same location at the same point in time.  The silly folks that worry about increases in CO2 concentration fail to recognize that displacement of other green house gases occurs coincident with the increase in co2.  IOW co2 displaces h20.  Which green house gas retains more heat, co2 or h2o? Gravity causes atmospheric pressure.  But we don't live in a sealed glass beaker do we?  CO2 is a NEGLIGIBLE portion of the CONTENT of our atmosphere.  It is hardly big bad ugly you global warmers are making it out to be.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 9, 2014)

If you want to "prove" co2 is causing global warming.. Why don't you start by prooving increased co2 has increased the "density" of greenhouse gases in our lower atmosphere but not our upper atmosphere.  FYI co2 has a cooling effect in our upper atmosphere.


----------



## Crick (Nov 9, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> You stated and I quote, "the Earth has reached a tipping point..."  You also stated "it is no longer possible to save ourselves."  You stated, "we've put this off far too long."
> 
> Then you claim to understand the carbon cycle.... but you ignore it completely.  You claim to understand displacement of greenhouse gases, but then ask me to explain it to you.
> 
> When you change the parts per million of one green house gas that change affects the parts per million of other green house gases.  Why?  Because two molecules can't occupy the same location at the same point in time.  The silly folks that worry about increases in CO2 concentration fail to recognize that displacement of other green house gases occurs coincident with the increase in co2.  IOW co2 displaces h20.  Which green house gas retains more heat, co2 or h2o? Gravity causes atmospheric pressure.  But we don't live in a sealed glass beaker do we?  CO2 is a NEGLIGIBLE portion of the CONTENT of our atmosphere.  It is hardly big bad ugly you global warmers are making it out to be.



That's your explanation?


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 9, 2014)

Crick said:


> That's your explanation?


That's your question?


----------



## Crick (Nov 9, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> If you want to "prove" co2 is causing global warming.. Why don't you start by prooving increased co2 has increased the "density" of greenhouse gases in our lower atmosphere but not our upper atmosphere.  FYI co2 has a cooling effect in our upper atmosphere.



I'm not sure where to start.  You have a number of serious misconceptions here.  

1) The unit "parts per million" is not used to notate density.

2) Greenhouse warming is not a density dependent process.  Rather, the amount of IR absorbed by greenhouse gases is dependent on the number of greenhouse molecules in the path and the length of that path.

3) The cooling of the stratosphere and the mesosphere is perfectly in line with our understanding of the greenhouse effect.  It also happens to refute the idea that any of the warming which has taken place in the last 30-40 years could be due to increases in solar output as that would NOT have produced the observed high altitude cooling.

4) When you use the term "displace" it indicates that something is being forced to go somewhere else.  The creation of carbon dioxide from atmospheric oxygen and fossil hydrocarbons is not physically pushing anything out of the Earth's atmosphere.

5) You still have not explained what you mean when you speak of the carbon cycle being overwhelmed.  Please explain.


----------



## Crick (Nov 9, 2014)

Crick said:


> That's your explanation?





RKMBrown said:


> That's your question?



Well, I ask that because you seem to think the world's scientists dropped out of school in the third grade.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 9, 2014)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > That's your explanation?
> ...


Now you claim to be and / or speak for the "world's scientists?


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 9, 2014)

Crick said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > If you want to "prove" co2 is causing global warming.. Why don't you start by prooving increased co2 has increased the "density" of greenhouse gases in our lower atmosphere but not our upper atmosphere.  FYI co2 has a cooling effect in our upper atmosphere.
> ...


Now you claim there is no increase in ppm with density? 
Molecules in the atmosphere are not a part of the density of the atmosphere? What do you think causes density? nothingness?

WRT "overwhelm" some dumb ass claimed that we've reached saturation for how much CO2 can be absorbed by plant life.


----------



## Crick (Nov 9, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> That's your question?





Crick said:


> Well, I ask that because you seem to think the world's scientists dropped out of school in the third grade.





RKMBrown said:


> Now you claim to be and / or speak for the "world's scientists?



No... I say that because you are accusing the world's scientists who overwhelmingly accept the greenhouse effect as real and AGW as valid of making extremely basic errors and of having done so for over 150 years.  I find that rather unlikely.  What I find MUCH more likely is that you are suffering from several misconceptions in physics and chemistry.


----------



## Crick (Nov 9, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Now you claim there is no increase in ppm with density?  WTF?
> 
> Molecules in the atmosphere are not a part of the density of the atmosphere? WTF do you think causes density? nothingness?



The two are unrelated.  Density is a measure of - and is expressed in units of -  _mass per unit volume_, such as kilograms per cubic meter.  Parts per million is actually a "pseudo-unit" used to express dimensionless, fractional quantities.  Here is Wikipedia's explanation.  See if this helps.

In science and engineering, the *parts-per notation* is a set of pseudo units to describe small values of miscellaneous dimensionless quantities, e.g. mole fractionor mass fraction. Since these fractions are quantity-per-quantity measures, they are pure numbers with no associated units of measurement. Commonly used are *ppm*(parts-per-million, 10–6), *ppb* (parts-per-billion, 10–9), *ppt* (parts-per-trillion, 10–12) and *ppq* (parts-per-quadrillion, 10-15).

I could take a cubic meter of air with it's 400 ppm of CO2 and put it in a compressor and squeeze it down to a volume of one-tenth of a cubic meter.  It's pressure would increase tenfold (to ten atmospheres or 101,325 hPA) and its density would increase tenfold (to 12.25 kg/m^3).  But the fraction of that air that was made up of carbon dioxide would be unchanged: it would  still be 400 ppm.



RKMBrown said:


> WRT "overwhelm" some dumb ass claimed that we've reached saturation for how much CO2 can be absorbed by plant life.



Well, I'm sure that may be the case for some species.  I know it is not the case for all and that many species grow faster, taller, whatever, with more CO2.  Unfortunately, changes in temperature and rainfall will dramatically overwhelm any such effects on a global scale.  Increasing CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has not increased agricultural productivity and will not do so going forward.  Feel free to look that up.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 9, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> When you change the parts per million of one green house gas that change affects the parts per million of other green house gases.


Nope, it sure doesn't. That's some insanely ignorant nonsense. Increasing the relative concentration of one trace gas doesn't affect the concentrations of the other gases in the atmosphere. Where do imagine that the other gas molecules go anyway? Magically transported to the moon maybe?

Everything you say just reinforces everybody else's impression that you are an exceptionally ignorant retard.








RKMBrown said:


> Why?  Because two molecules can't occupy the same location at the same point in time.


Although true in the abstract, this statement has nothing to do with greenhouse gas concentrations or anything else we've been debating, and amounts to just more exceptionally moronic nonsense from the forum's new resident retard.







RKMBrown said:


> The silly folks that worry about increases in CO2 concentration fail to recognize that displacement of other green house gases occurs coincident with the increase in co2.  IOW co2 displaces h20.


And still more totally insane bullshit. Your anti-science fantasies about the "_displacement of other greenhouse gases_" are idiotic nonsense without any connection to the actual behavior of gases in our atmosphere.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 9, 2014)

I have tangles with Browneyes before. He is another willfully ignorant individual that intends to work very hard to maintain that status.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 9, 2014)

Crick said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Now you claim there is no increase in ppm with density?  WTF?
> ...


ROFL  omg... ROFL  now the "expert" says molecules have no mass and are not present in the atmosphere and.... get this... because he can put air under pressure in a beaker he thinks air is not under pressure in our atmosphere.  OMG you global warmers are soooo funny.   Oh and in case you thought it wasn't gonna get any funnier he thinks he can put an "UNLIMITED AMOUNT OF MOLECULES IN ONE BEAKER."  Why does he think this?  Simple cause if he can't then his dumb ass theory that molecules don't displace other molecules is... out the door.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 9, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > When you change the parts per million of one green house gas that change affects the parts per million of other green house gases.
> ...




Here we go yet another so called "scientist" that does not believe molecules can displace other molecules.  This is not hard.. if you pump one greenhouse gas into a volume, say the size of our atmosphere.... they will displace the other molecules... most of which are water vapor.  Guess what not all molecules are in the lower atmosphere.... pump enough molecules into a glass with no lid... like our atmosphere and you push molecules into the "upper atmosphere."  Oh wait... didn't we already agree co2 in the upper atmosphere has a "cooling effect?"


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 9, 2014)

Said another way... show me proof the ppm of other "greenhouse" gases has not decreased with your measured increase of co2 molecules.  Oh and do that at lower and upper atmospheric measurements...  Then if you can show me that the PPM of greenhouse gases that you say warm the atmosphere has "increased" in the lower atmosphere and the PPM of greenhouse gases that cool the upper atmosphere has not increased... then maybe you'll have an argument to overcome my questions.  Otherwise the story you are giving me... it sounds like you are selling hot air, which... btw cools down as it rises..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 9, 2014)

I see old crock and crick are still laying their shit pellets out all over the place.. Yet they can not show the proof (data, methods, calculations) of observed empirical evidence (not a fucking model as they all fail the prediction phase of falsification) of just how 120ppm has affected the earth and its systems.

So again I will post the real world data that disproves their little charade of lies and deception...

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000.  Below each is  the rate of warming.







The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now wait... this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..






So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

The major point is, *there was no discernible rise or divergence from natural variation.* Thus a 0.0 rise is attributed to CO2 increase in our atmosphere.

That's it... Simple observation places the whole lie in the trash bin..


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 9, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Said another way... show me proof the ppm of other "greenhouse" gases has not decreased with your measured increase of co2 molecules.  Oh and do that at lower and upper atmospheric measurements...  Then if you can show me that the PPM of greenhouse gases that you say warm the atmosphere has "increased" in the lower atmosphere and the PPM of greenhouse gases that cool the upper atmosphere has not increased... then maybe you'll have an argument to overcome my questions.  Otherwise the story you are giving me... it sounds like you are selling hot air, which... btw cools down as it rises..



OK. I will indulge your ignorance and confusion.

*Global warming amplifier: Rising water vapor in upper troposphere to intensify climate change*
ScienceDaily
Date: July 28, 2014
Source: University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science
*A new study from scientists at the University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science and colleagues confirms rising levels of water vapor in the upper troposphere -- a key amplifier of global warming -- will intensify climate change impacts over the next decades. The new study is the first to show that increased water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere are a direct result of human activities.

"The study is the first to confirm that human activities have increased water vapor in the upper troposphere," said Brian Soden, professor of atmospheric sciences at the UM Rosenstiel School and co-author of the study.

To investigate the potential causes of a 30-year moistening trend in the upper troposphere, a region 3-7 miles above Earth's surface, Soden, UM Rosenstiel School researcher Eui-Seok Chung and colleagues measured water vapor in the upper troposphere collected by NOAA satellites and compared them to climate model predictions of water circulation between the ocean and atmosphere to determine whether observed changes in atmospheric water vapor could be explained by natural or human-made causes. Using the set of climate model experiments, the researchers showed that rising water vapor in the upper troposphere cannot be explained by natural forces, such as volcanoes and changes in solar activity, but can be explained by increased greenhouse gases, such as CO2.

Greenhouse gases raise temperatures by trapping Earth's radiant heat inside the atmosphere. This warming also increases the accumulation of atmospheric water vapor, the most abundant greenhouse gas. The atmospheric moistening traps additional radiant heat and further increases temperatures.

Climate models predict that as the climate warms from the burning of fossil fuels, the concentrations of water vapor will also increase in response to that warming. This moistening of the atmosphere, in turn, absorbs more heat and further raises Earth's temperature.

The paper, titled "Upper Tropospheric Moistening in response to Anthropogenic Warming," was published in the July 28th, 2014 Early Addition on-line of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). The paper's authors include Chung, Soden, B.J. Sohn of Seoul National University, and Lei Shi of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Ashville, North Carolina.*


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 9, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Said another way... show me proof the ppm of other "greenhouse" gases has not decreased with your measured increase of co2 molecules.  Oh and do that at lower and upper atmospheric measurements...  Then if you can show me that the PPM of greenhouse gases that you say warm the atmosphere has "increased" in the lower atmosphere and the PPM of greenhouse gases that cool the upper atmosphere has not increased... then maybe you'll have an argument to overcome my questions.  Otherwise the story you are giving me... it sounds like you are selling hot air, which... btw cools down as it rises..
> ...


ROFL... so they claim I'm right that increased co2 resulted in displacement of h20 into the upper atmosphere... but they conclude that greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere will "heat" the atmosphere further... even though the opposite it true.. ROFL.. you just can't make up the lies these folks come up with.  Oh and guess what... the global warming models were all wrong... why?


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 10, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Nope, you're ridiculously wrong again. The study I quoted says nothing of the sort. They studied increasing water vapor levels in specifically the upper parts of the troposphere, which is still part of the lower atmosphere, moron, not the upper. The upper atmosphere is called the stratosphere.

Aveage water vapor levels have risen about 4% over the the entire depth of the troposphere, right down to the ground. No crackpot "_displacement_".







RKMBrown said:


> .. but they conclude that greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere will "heat" the atmosphere further..


Nope, still wrong. You have zero ability to comprehend what you read. The study says nothing about the upper atmosphere. It is entirely concerned with the increase in water vapor levels in the troposphere - the LOWER atmosphere, you ignorant imbecile.









RKMBrown said:


> the global warming models were all wrong... why?


You only imagine the models are wrong...."_why?_"....because you are apparently a misinformed brainwashed retard, that's why!!!

In the real world....

*Global warming predictions prove accurate*
*Analysis of climate change modelling for past 15 years reveal accurate forecasts of rising global temperatures*
The Guardian
27 March 2013
*
Climate Models & Accuracy
Professor Scott A. Mandia





Figure 6.1: Global temperature trend over the past century modeled quite well
Figure 6.2 (ibid) belows shows how climate model temperature predictions compare to reconstructed temperatures. Thick lines represent model predictions with human and natural forcing (All) and thin lines represent model predictions with just natural forcing (Nat). Models do a good job of simulating past climate using just natural forcing but they can only reproduce the modern temperature record by including human emissions of greenhouse gases. The thick and thin lines begin to diverge around 1850 around the time that the Industrial Revolution ramped up. Futhermore, the models predict that the modern climate should be COOLING due to natural forcing which means that the human forcing dominates climate in the recent record.




*


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 10, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


You are such a fucking retard.  The upper trop ends where the strat begins, dumb ass.  I never fucking said "strat."  You're a moron.  ROFL moron thinks upper is lower.  Moron thinks the climate models were on target ROFL... Yeah cause the arctic ice has melted and the oceans have flooded florida.


----------



## Crick (Nov 10, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Now you claim there is no increase in ppm with density?  WTF?
> 
> Molecules in the atmosphere are not a part of the density of the atmosphere? WTF do you think causes density? nothingness?





Crick said:


> The two are unrelated.  Density is a measure of - and is expressed in units of -  _mass per unit volume_, such as kilograms per cubic meter.  Parts per million is actually a "pseudo-unit" used to express dimensionless, fractional quantities.  Here is Wikipedia's explanation.  See if this helps.





Wikipedia said:


> In science and engineering, the *parts-per notation* is a set of pseudo units to describe small values of miscellaneous dimensionless quantities, e.g. mole fractionor mass fraction. Since these fractions are quantity-per-quantity measures, they are pure numbers with no associated units of measurement. Commonly used are *ppm*(parts-per-million, 10–6), *ppb* (parts-per-billion, 10–9), *ppt* (parts-per-trillion, 10–12) and *ppq* (parts-per-quadrillion, 10-15).





Crick said:


> I could take a cubic meter of air with it's 400 ppm of CO2 and put it in a compressor and squeeze it down to a volume of one-tenth of a cubic meter.  It's pressure would increase tenfold (to ten atmospheres or 101,325 hPA) and its density would increase tenfold (to 12.25 kg/m^3).  But the fraction of that air that was made up of carbon dioxide would be unchanged: it would  still be 400 ppm.





RKMBrown said:


> WRT "overwhelm" some dumb ass claimed that we've reached saturation for how much CO2 can be absorbed by plant life.





Crick said:


> Well, I'm sure that may be the case for some species.  I know it is not the case for all and that many species grow faster, taller, whatever, with more CO2.  Unfortunately, changes in temperature and rainfall will dramatically overwhelm any such effects on a global scale.  Increasing CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has not increased agricultural productivity and will not do so going forward.  Feel free to look that up.





RKMBrown said:


> ROFL  omg... ROFL  now the "expert" says molecules have no mass and are not present in the atmosphere and.... get this... because he can put air under pressure in a beaker he thinks air is not under pressure in our atmosphere.  OMG you global warmers are soooo funny.   Oh and in case you thought it wasn't gonna get any funnier he thinks he can put an "UNLIMITED AMOUNT OF MOLECULES IN ONE BEAKER."  Why does he think this?  Simple cause if he can't then his dumb ass theory that molecules don't displace other molecules is... out the door.



Mr Brown (I assume that is your name), my name is Abraham.  That used to be my nick here but I left and then tried to come back and management forced me to change it.  If you go back through my posts in this latest discussion, I think you will find that I've been generally courteous; certainly more courteous than I have treated other people in this forum.  I realize not everyone on my side of this argument has made the same effort (aside to RT: hint hint).

You know (as does everyone that has read my statement above) that I never said molecules have no mass and never said they weren't present in the atmosphere. I never said air wasn't under pressure in the atmosphere or that I could put an unlimited amount of air in a given volume.

What I said and what I explained by clear example is that changing the pressure and density of a gas does not affect the ppm ratios of it's constituent gases.  As you saw in the Wikipedia text, the actual meaning of ppm in this usage is, effectively "molecules per million molecules" or "moles per million moles" (if you happen to know what moles are).  Because you have the same entity in the numerator and denominator, the two cancel and you are left, as Wikipedia notes, with a massless quantity.  Massless quantities are common in science and engineering.  For example, if I wanted to speak of the error in a car's speedometer that was dependent on the actual velocity, I could end up with the units "mph error per actual mph", thus "mph per mph".  Algebraically, the two cancel and you are left with a massless quantity.  This is handy because the value of that ratio is independent of what units I use to measure the error.  It would have the same value if measured in "kilometers per second per kilometers per second"  Carbon dioxide's ppm ratio is simply the proportion of the atmosphere's mixture for which CO2 accounts.  That proportion is not changed by altering the pressure or density (or temperature) of the air.

Now, let's say I start with, say, one million molecules of air, 400 of which will be carbon dioxide, and put them in a sealed container.  Now I _add_, for example, 1,000 more molecules of CO2.  We now have a total of 1,001,000 molecules in our container, 1,400 of which are carbon dioxide.  Pulling out our calculator and doing the math we find that we now have 1,400 * (1,000,000 / 1,001,000) =  just slightly in excess of 1,398.6 ppm carbon dioxide in our mixture.  This may be where your misunderstanding lies.  However, recall that in the Earth's atmosphere, to create a CO2 molecule, we will consume one O2 molecule (the carbon coming from the coal or oil).  Thus the molecule count is unchanged by combustion and even this minor affect does not take place. 

The point of all this is that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere does not simply replace one greenhouse gas with another.  It ADDS to the amount of greenhouse gas molecules in the atmosphere which increases the number of such molecules any photon of light will run into wending it's merry way into and finally out of the Earth's atmosphere.  Adding CO2 or any other greenhouse gas (ex water vapor or methane) will increase the planet's equilibrium temperature - will cause the planet to warm.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 10, 2014)

Crick said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Now you claim there is no increase in ppm with density?  WTF?
> ...



Interesting.  Thx for being courteous. mole as in unit... chemistry.. ick 

So to repeat what I'm hearing.  You are saying that taking into "isolation" the event where CO2 is generated by burning coal or other carbon sinks, we see that inert carbon and o2 enters the event and one molecule leaves (CO2).  Thus when burning carbon sinks in that fashion co2 is swapped for o2 in the atmosphere. Ok. At that specific point in time of the life of that carbon and that pair of oxygen atoms... ok...

However, that is but a "point in time" no?  Do plants not in turn convert that co2 right back into O2? The Oxygen atoms are not destroyed in the process, they are merely converted temporarily to CO2.

For example:






Here in these other examples we see natural means to use carbon as one of the key elements of life, no?  We are after all "carbon" based life forms.


FYI I believe I was talking about H2O (water vapor) being displaced, not O2.  Check above. It is my understanding that h2o in the form of vapor is the bulk of all greenhouse gases.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

But I see that since O2 and CO2 have the same density, and are swapped, my guess was wrong in the case where air bound O2 was used in the combustion.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 10, 2014)

Interesting piece of information:


> At room temperature and atmospheric pressure, oxygen and carbon dioxide are both gasses. In fact, they are close to what scientists call ideal gasses. Ideal gasses are much more easy to understand than non-ideal gasses. For ideal gasses, the density of the gas (the weight for a given volume--basically the heaviness) is directly proportional to the mass of an individual molecule. For oxygen, a molecule consists of two oxygen atoms, and has a weight of 2 x 16 = 32. For carbon dioxide, there is one carbon atom (weight 12) and two oxygen atoms (mass 16 x 2) for a total of 44. This means that carbon dioxide should be about 44/32 = 1.375 times as heavy as an equivalent volume of oxygen. In reality, oxygen gas has a density of 1.429 grams/liter at the so-called standard pressure and temperature (basically room temperature and atmospheric pressure) while carbon dioxide has a density of 1.977 grams/liter. If you do the math, you will find that carbon dioxide is 1.383 times as heavy as oxygen. This means that the "ideal gas model" is very good in this cas



So swapping o2 for co2 is a no-op.  One of the rare instances where the chemical reaction has a neutral effect wrt density of the gas.

Coming full circle... what makes us think the plants can't "ramp" up conversion of CO2 back to O2?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 10, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


And yet you have no evidence to support that any increase of CO2 affects temperatures.  None, nada, zip.  dude, please stop posting the same lie over and over especially after being told so.  How silly is that? Very and stoopid and proves you have nothing.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 10, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Coming full circle... what makes us think the plants can't "ramp" up conversion of CO2 back to O2?



What makes you think that red herring is relevant to anything?

We directly measure how CO2 levels are increasing.

Therefore, your "but the carbon cycle compensates!" argument is bullshit. If the carbon cycle did compensate, CO2 levels wouldn't be increasing.

The direct measurements show your argument is bullshit. Therefore we know, with 100% certainty, that your argument is bullshit.

If you want me to use smaller words, you're out of luck, as I don't see how I can dumb it down any further.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 10, 2014)

mamooth said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Coming full circle... what makes us think the plants can't "ramp" up conversion of CO2 back to O2?
> ...


Was rome built in a day? Why do you expect world wide plant growth of plants more amenable to the CO2 to occur overnight?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 10, 2014)

mamooth said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Coming full circle... what makes us think the plants can't "ramp" up conversion of CO2 back to O2?
> ...


 And yet, no evidence of temperature increase.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 10, 2014)

jc456 said:


> And yet, no evidence of temperature increase.



Good example of braindead denial of reality.

So far this year, in 2014, April was tied with April of 2010 as the hottest April on record, with records dating back to 1880. May and June were both the hottest May and June on record, and August and September were also the hottest August and September on record. October has so far been declared to be the hottest October in the satellite records and will probably be confirmed as the hottest October in the entire instrumental record as well.

*The past 12 months -- October 2013-September 2014 -- was the warmest 12-month period among all months since records began in 1880....With the exception of February, every month to date in 2014 has been among its four warmest on record, with May, June, August, and September all record warm.
(NOAA - Global Analysis - September 2014)*


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 10, 2014)

but in the past 18 years, the world temperature has increased.............ready for this............ 1/20th of one degree!!!

These people are out of their minds.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 10, 2014)

So.....anybody else notice........for years, all the AGW crowd talked about was "temperature averages" being critical!! But because since 1998, temps have only increased by a fraction of 1 degree, now they want to ALWAYS be talking about specific years that serve their agenda well ( see dumbasses world temperature post above ).

These people are like chameleons..............they can morph and change the narrative around at a moments notice to suit their needs but the problem is, it doesn't pass the smell test.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 10, 2014)

So.....anybody else notice........for years, all the AGW crowd talked about was "temperature averages" being critical!! But because since 1998, temps have only increased by a fraction of 1 degree, now they want to ALWAYS be talking about specific years that serve their agenda well ( see dumbasses world temperature post above ).

These people are like chameleons..............they can morph and change the narrative around at a moments notice to suit their needs but the problem is, it doesn't pass the smell test.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 10, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > And yet, no evidence of temperature increase.
> ...


 sure it was!! what does that get you?


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 10, 2014)

And there go three more worthless deranged brainfarts from the kookster troll.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 10, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> And there go three more worthless deranged brainfarts from the kookster troll.


 And you're the one with nothing to provide to the discussion!  Glad you understand your part in the thread.  your time is best utilized continuing to play with your dolls.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 10, 2014)

Suddenly Ski Season in New England NECN 



Even people in New England are like......


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 10, 2014)

And the rabbit poop brothers leaving their shit pellets all over will not address empirical OBSERVED evidence which blows their crap out of the water...

Too Funny....

I love to see that real science is WINNING!

With most of the US 25-35 degrees below normal Nov will be below normal smashing the poop brothers hopes of the hottest year ev'a!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 10, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > And there go three more worthless deranged brainfarts from the kookster troll.
> ...



Naw that would be his BROKEN Models... He cant figure out why they never work...


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 10, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Clear evidence of global temperature increases. You poor blind retard.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 10, 2014)

First big heat event melts Australian temperature records

Australia's first major heatwave of the warming season has broken temperature records across the nation, more than a month before the official start to summer.

On Saturday, the country set its warmest October day in records going back to 1910, with average maximums across the nation reaching 36.39 degrees, according to the Bureau of Meteorology.

The previous record for October was set on the 31st of the month in 1988, at 36.31 degrees.

*Warm in Australia.*



Read more: First big heat event melts Australian temperature records


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 10, 2014)

Europe Faces Cold Winter After Longest Warm Spell Since 1964 - Bloomberg

Temperatures in Europe are forecast to be warmer than average this month in the mildest year since 1964 before plunging below normal this winter, potentially pushing up power and natural gas prices.

Six of seven forecasters surveyed by Bloomberg predict November to be milder than normal across Europe, marking 10 months of above-average temperatures this year. December through February is expected to be the 10th-coldest winter since 1981, according to MDA Information Systems LLC.

*Warm in Europe*


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 10, 2014)

The best time to go on a Botswana holiday weather climate.

So below is a broad guide to the climate of Botswana. Please remember that this comes from records and our experience, not from a crystal ball. Weather patterns across Africa are becoming increasingly unpredictable, probably due to global warming; we're seeing downpours in the middle of deserts and damaging droughts when rains should be falling.

*Interesting, an assessment from a businessman, not a climate expert.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 10, 2014)

Africa Heats Up -- climate change threatens future of the continent

A group of researchers presented their findings on the subject at the American Geophysical Union's annual conference in May of this year. Generated from the analysis of 60 separate computer simulations imitating global climate, the results infer that the temperature increase in the Indian Ocean is to blame for the present drought in southern Africa. Further, higher rainfall in the Sahel appears to be linked to temperature changes in the Atlantic. The nature of the change is not as simple as a straightforward increase in temperature however. 

Regular droughts have decimated crop yields in various parts of the continent since 1970. The scientists' models reveal consistent and marked warming of the Indian Ocean, implying persistent and increased occurrence of drought in the Horn as well as southern Africa. Results indicate that the droughts in southern Africa can be traced directly to the change in the Indian Ocean, which has warmed by one degree Celsius since 1950. The new models show that the regular monsoon winds that bring seasonal rain to sub-Saharan Africa may be 10-20% drier than in the last 50 year period. With this warming, rainy seasons are becoming markedly shorter. 
Read more at Africa Heats Up -- climate change threatens future of the continent

*Seems to confirm the previous post.*


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 10, 2014)

Record Cold In Colorado Real Science

Suddenly Ski Season in New England NECN

The Greatest Climate Myths of All 8211 Part 1 Watts Up With That


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 10, 2014)

*Arctic monthly surface air temperatures north of 70N*








*The arctic still maintaining a warming.*


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 10, 2014)

95% of CO2 would occur even if humans didn't exist!!!

The Global Warming Myth 8211 Debunking Global Warmings 5 Commandments Mcauleysworld s Weblog

Beware the human racists on this forum!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 10, 2014)

Not to mention.......India and China burn gargantuan amounts of coal sending their economies soaring over the past 20 years.

Only the AGW community thinks they can be talked out of it and go 100% solar and wind!!!!!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 10, 2014)

Crick goes for every adjusted and manipulated data set to 'prove' his lies....  Desperate times for alarmists as their lies are being exposed in almost every nation.. Whistle blowers are exposing their data manipulations all over..


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 10, 2014)

anyway...........CO2 levels follow changes in temperature, not the other way around.

 http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Temperaturesandiceages-f.pdf .


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 10, 2014)

Network News Silent On Climate Change In Election Coverage Blog Media Matters for America


The day 8216 climate change 8217 became irrelevant in politics 8211 Powerful Green Lobby Defeated In US Midterm Elections Watts Up With That


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 10, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> *Arctic monthly surface air temperatures north of 70N*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Pitifully moronic...

Lets add the trend line.. Shall we?


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 11, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Europe Faces Cold Winter After Longest Warm Spell Since 1964 - Bloomberg
> 
> Temperatures in Europe are forecast to be warmer than average this month in the mildest year since 1964 before plunging below normal this winter, potentially pushing up power and natural gas prices.
> 
> ...


The little ice age is over we're all gonna die!!!


----------



## jc456 (Nov 11, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 i guess only clear for you.  See if you finagle the numbers, you can make it anything you want.  For the actual observed readings, the one's that cities and states use, it's cooling.  I have observed on my side, you only have your finagled numbers.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 11, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> First big heat event melts Australian temperature records
> 
> Australia's first major heatwave of the warming season has broken temperature records across the nation, more than a month before the official start to summer.
> 
> ...


 sure they do, they always do, just watch your numbers.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 11, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> 95% of CO2 would occur even if humans didn't exist!!!
> 
> The Global Warming Myth 8211 Debunking Global Warmings 5 Commandments Mcauleysworld s Weblog



Denier cult drivel. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, the amount of CO2 that was naturally emitted was 100% balanced by the amount if CO2 that was naturally absorbed or sequestered. It was in a natural homeostatic balance. Now mankind has burned billions of tonnes of fossil fuels and un-naturally altered the previous balance so that the Earth's atmosphere has accumulated more and more CO2, raising the CO2 levels by 43% (so far and still rapidly rising) over the stable pre-industrial levels.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 11, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick goes for every adjusted and manipulated data set to 'prove' his lies....  Desperate times for alarmists as their lies are being exposed in almost every nation.. Whistle blowers are exposing their data manipulations all over..


Desperate denier cult lies, bogus propaganda myths and the usual crackpot conspiracy theories from ol' BoobyBobNutJob, based on no evidence whatsoever. The worldwide scientific consensus on AGW/CC is stronger than ever.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 11, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


More crackpot conspiracy theory nonsense involving tens of thousands of scientists all around the world. Suitable only for extremely gullible retards.

JustCrazy says he uses the "_actual observed readings that cities and states use_". LOLOL. That means, in denier cult lingo, that he uses only some cherry-picked U.S. temperature records (representing less than 2% of the Earth's surface), not the global temperature records.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 11, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > First big heat event melts Australian temperature records
> ...


LOLOLOLOL......riiiiight, JustCrazy.....Australia just set a new record high temperature for October since they began keeping records in 1910, on October 25th, six days earlier than the previous, somewhat lower record high that happened on October 31st in 1988. And you moronically claim that "_they always do_"....what, exactly?,,,,,,set new records for heat waves? You are a troll!


----------



## jc456 (Nov 11, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


----------



## jc456 (Nov 11, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 right back at ya!!!!!


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 11, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


A completely vacuous and meaningless reply. I suppose this is the sort of desperate nonsense the denier cultists will be doing more and more as the world warms, their lies get debunked and their cult crumbles.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 11, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 it is all your response deserved.  See I have been waiting and waiting for something meaningful from you or your peers and you spew the same sludge over and over.  Get some new material.  BTW, back at you means your own comments back at you.  Why requote them?  Seems useless, since you're in error.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 11, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


More meaningless nonsense, desperately trying to cover up the fact that you are unable to support your fraudulent claims and denier cult BS with any actual scientific evidence. You spew hot air but there is no connection between your drivel and the real world.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 11, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 And still nothing I see.   You need to be retrained by your handlers.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 11, 2014)

jc456 said:


> And still nothing I see.



Yeah, we've all noticed that about you, JustCrazy, many, many, many times......and the reason has always been quite obvious too.....it's really hard to see anything when your head is jammed as far up your lower intestines as you've managed to get your head wedged.

People not suffering from your unfortunate rectal/cranial inversion can see this evidence quite clearly....

*The past 12 months - October 2013 to September 2014 - was the warmest 12-month period among all months since records began in 1880....With the exception of February, every month to date in 2014 has been among its four warmest on record, with May, June, August, and September all record warm.
(NOAA - Global Analysis - September 2014)


****


----------



## jc456 (Nov 11, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > And still nothing I see.
> ...


 And as always the come back expected from a loser.  Someone with nothing to say, merely posting insult after insult.  You make me laugh!!!! here.... or


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 11, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Another vacuous response from JustCrazy, that ignores the scientific evidence that has been presented and ignores the debunking of his lies and bogus claims. Just more silly twaddle.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 11, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 I have more creative ideas in my pinky finger than you do in your entire body blunderhead.  You sir have silch subject matter that is scientific.  what you have is psuedo science manufactured for a purpose as pointed out over and over again.  And yet, funny thing, haha, you still can't provide that scientific evidence that you claim you have.  Let's see it, show the experiment that shows an increase in temperature with adding 120 PPM of CO2.  Where's that science genuious?   hahaahahahahahahahahaha nope won't post it I know it, i know it. Need a magic eight ball?  how about a Ouija board? more laughs on line in US Message Boards.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 11, 2014)

Rolling Thunder is as insane a poster as you'll ever meet.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 11, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Still more silly twaddle from the "_genuious_" who imagines he's smarter than all of the world's scientists. LOLOLOL.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 12, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 I at least know that adding a mere 120 PPM of CO2 to the atmosphere will not increase temperatures.  And you can't prove me wrong. hahahahahahahhahahaha


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 12, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


The laughter of idiots is very unimpressive. You imagine that you "_know_" something but you are a mistaken brainwashed idiot, full of misinformation and lies.

Here's the actual science...

*The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2012 concluded:*
*
"There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability.

Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.[66]"*​


----------



## jc456 (Nov 12, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 And yet no warming over the last 18 and 1/2 years.  Naw, they're the nutjobs along with you!


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 12, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Only you denier cult retards believe that fraudulent myth.

Meanwhile, in the real world, as NOAA announced last month....

*The past 12 months - October 2013 to September 2014 - was the warmest 12-month period among all months since records began in 1880.*

They will announce tomorrow (Nov 13th) that the period from November 2013 to October 2014 is the next new hottest twelve month period on record.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 12, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


ROFL what's it like having the intelligence of a hamster?


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 12, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





RKMBrown said:


> ROFL what's it like having the intelligence of a hamster?


You would know so you tell us.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 12, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


I know you are but what am I comebacks are for 9year olds.


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 12, 2014)

About a twenty degree below normal coast to coast for the week or better.  Bring those weather stations indoors.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 12, 2014)

We broke all time low records.....


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 12, 2014)

saveliberty said:


> About a twenty degree below normal coast to coast for the week or better.  Bring those weather stations indoors.


And Alaska is unusually warm, as are many other parts of the planet. Last November was the hottest November on record globally; last April was tied with April 2010 as the hottest April on record; this last May and June and August and September and now October were all the hottest respective months on record. Globally, the world just experienced the hottest 12 month period or 'year', from September 2013 to October 2014, since at least the beginning of instrumental temperature records, and very probably, according to the proxy temperature records that scientists have studied, for many thousands of years. A slightly early cold snap in North America, driven by a very unusual storm in the North Pacific, is not the big deal you deniers try to make it and basically has no significance to the overall rapid warming of the entire planet that has been scientifically observed over the last century or so, but particularly since the 1970s.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 12, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > About a twenty degree below normal coast to coast for the week or better.  Bring those weather stations indoors.
> ...



Someone who does not understand how the earths climatic systems work..  What is so hard about paradoxical presentations and cooling you cant grasp?


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 12, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> And Alaska is unusually warm, as are many other parts of the planet. Last November was the hottest November on record globally; last April was tied with April 2010 as the hottest April on record; this last May and June and August and September and now October were all the hottest respective months on record. Globally, the world just experienced the hottest 12 month period or 'year', from September 2013 to October 2014, since at least the beginning of instrumental temperature records, and very probably, according to the proxy temperature records that scientists have studied, for many thousands of years. A slightly early cold snap in North America, driven by a very unusual storm in the North Pacific, is not the big deal you deniers try to make it and basically has no significance to the overall rapid warming of the entire planet that has been scientifically observed over the last century or so, but particularly since the 1970s.





Billy_Bob said:


> Someone who does not understand how the earths climatic systems work..


Hey thanks, BoobyBobNutJob, for so clearly and accurately identifying yourself right at the start of your post.....it lets everybody know where you're coming from right off the bat....you nailed your condition exactly...






Billy_Bob said:


> What is so hard about paradoxical presentations and cooling you cant grasp?


What is you can't grasp about the clear and overwhelming evidence that the Earth is warming up because mankind's fossil fuel use has increased CO2 levels by 43% so far (and heading for a doubling within decades)? Why are you acting like such a brainwashed retard?


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 12, 2014)

The only scientific correlation of temperature to warming is that both started when climate scientists started manipulating data.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 12, 2014)

saveliberty said:


> The only scientific correlation of temperature to warming is that both started when climate scientists started manipulating data.


More braindead drivel from another clueless denier cult dingbat.

The " _scientific correlation of temperature to warming_" phrase is meaningless gibberish that only reveals how completely clueless this particular imbecile really is. Apparently this moron doesn't even know what 'correlation' actually means scientifically. Temperature is a measure of the ambient heat energy. Recording temperatures around the world allows people to see the changes over time, and currently those changing temperatures indicate that the Earth is warming up. 

Topped off of course with the usual crackpot conspiracy theory insanity. Where do these nutjobs come from? A mental hospital perhaps.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 13, 2014)

saveliberty said:


> The only scientific correlation of temperature to warming is that both started when climate scientists started manipulating data.



Partially true...a genuine warming trend has been going on for the past 14k years as evidenced by the fact that Chicago isn't under a mile of ice....warming that could be construed as alarming if you are a real warckaloon only began when climate science began to cool the past while warming the present....and lets not forget the effort to erase the MWP which was certainly warmer than the present in order to present what small warming that is happening as "unprecedented"


----------



## Crick (Nov 13, 2014)

So you believe there was no 20th century warming till NOAA and NCDC began making adjustments?  Is that right?


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 13, 2014)

SSDD said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > The only scientific correlation of temperature to warming is that both started when climate scientists started manipulating data.
> ...


But the libtards want us to go back to dark ages with a new mini ICE age. Apparently they think colder is better than warmer.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 13, 2014)

saveliberty said:


> The only scientific correlation of temperature to warming is that both started when climate scientists started manipulating data.


Now that is just plain fucking stupid. So, the scientists have been out there in all the mountain ranges on earth melting the glaciers? There were 150+ glaciers in Glacier National Park when it was declared a National Park, today, less than 30. So, no warming is melting the glaciers?


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 13, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > The only scientific correlation of temperature to warming is that both started when climate scientists started manipulating data.
> ...


FYI the glaciers used to cover most of north america.  Is that what you want? An ICE Age?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 13, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


 Look, you irrational retarded little dingle fuck, what we would like to see is a continuation of the present rather nice interglacial. However, a very rapid warming will put an end to that, and create conditions that make it very difficult for our infrastructure, and agriculture, to cope. That with 7 billion humans depending on both.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 13, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


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


What the fuck do you want, a prize for the stupidest comments on the board? Keep working at it, you are getting there.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 13, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Let me get this straight.  You cry about the glaciers receding from the ICE Age, something that has been going on for a very very very long time.  Then when I point out that this is not a new thing, you say that is stupid.  I see.  So you don't believe glaciers recede between ice ages? Or are you trying to claim "this" time the gap between ice ages is worse than prior times?  Uhmm why don't you explain to the class why you want more ice and less warming?  Or maybe you can show proof that this time glaciers are receding farther than they did last time before humans caused the end of the ice age...


----------



## jc456 (Nov 13, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 So, you know what a normal recovery from an ice age is supposed to look like?  Is that what you're saying? 

I know it's been stated here that the NA continent was all ice in history and has been recovering from the ice age.  So what is it about glaciers continuing that melt is wrong according to you.  So what? why is that an issue for you?  See this doom and gloom the sky falling shit is just pompous crapola.  You know it, and since you do, you are but an antigonist.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 13, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


More idiotic meaningless drivel from the troll JustCrazy.

*Why do glacial periods end abruptly?
Warming at the end of glacial periods tends to happen more abruptly than the increase in solar insolation. There are several positive feedbacks that are responsible for this. One is the ice-albedo feedback. A second feedback involves atmospheric CO2. Direct measurement of past CO2 trapped in ice core bubbles show that the amount of atmospheric CO2 decreased during glacial periods (Figure 3), in part because more CO2 was stored in the deep ocean due to changes in either ocean mixing or biological activity. Lower CO2 levels weakened the atmosphere's greenhouse effect and helped to maintain low temperatures. Warming at the end of the glacial periods liberated CO2 from the ocean, which strengthened the atmosphere's greenhouse effect and contributed to further warming.*


----------



## jc456 (Nov 13, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


 oh come on, why don't you learn how CO2 gets in the atmosphere!!!!!


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 13, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


More idiotic denier cult nonsense. All the world's scientists know how CO2 gets into the atmosphere, and, since I trust the scientists, I do too. You, on the other hand, are too retarded to know your ass from a hole in the ground so you just mindlessly parrot the lies and propaganda the fossil fuel industry is manufacturing.

*What are the main sources of carbon dioxide emissions?
There are both natural and human sources of carbon dioxide emissions. Natural sources include decomposition, ocean release and respiration. Human sources come from activities like cement production, deforestation as well as the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas.

Due to human activities, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has been rising extensively since the Industrial Revolution and has now reached dangerous levels not seen in the last 3 million years.1 2 3 Human sources of carbon dioxide emissions are much smaller than natural emissions but they have upset the natural balance that existed for many thousands of years before the influence of humans.

This is because natural sinks remove around the same quantity of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than are produced by natural sources.4 This had kept carbon dioxide levels balanced and in a safe range. But human sources of emissions have upset the natural balance by adding extra carbon dioxide to the atmosphere without removing any.

Human Sources
Since the Industrial Revolution, human sources of carbon dioxide emissions have been growing. Human activities such as the burning of oil, coal and gas, as well as deforestation are the primary cause of the increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.

87 percent of all human-produced carbon dioxide emissions come from the burning of fossil fuels like coal, natural gas and oil. The remainder results from the clearing of forests and other land use changes (9%), as well as some industrial processes such as cement manufacturing (4%).1*


----------



## jc456 (Nov 13, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 Still no explanation on how the CO2 gets in the atmosphere.  All of this is who produces CO2, not how it actually gets in the atmosphere.  So do you know that?  I have little doubt.  Even though it is explained on the internet.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 13, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


LOLOLOLOLOL.....do you even know what the word 'emission' means, little retard? "_Producing CO2_" MEANS 'emitting CO2', moron. 

Carbon combines with oxygen, in the combustion of fuels, or in certain industrial processes (like cement production), or in the bacterial decomposition of biomass, or in the internal cellular production of energy in living organisms, to produce carbon dioxide, which is released (or 'emitted') either directly as with fuel burning, cement production and decomposition of organic material into the atmosphere, or indirectly through blood transport and respiration in living organisms.

Only a complete retard would imagine that there is some question about how the combustion gases from an open flame get into the atmosphere.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 13, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > And Alaska is unusually warm, as are many other parts of the planet. Last November was the hottest November on record globally; last April was tied with April 2010 as the hottest April on record; this last May and June and August and September and now October were all the hottest respective months on record. Globally, the world just experienced the hottest 12 month period or 'year', from September 2013 to October 2014, since at least the beginning of instrumental temperature records, and very probably, according to the proxy temperature records that scientists have studied, for many thousands of years. A slightly early cold snap in North America, driven by a very unusual storm in the North Pacific, is not the big deal you deniers try to make it and basically has no significance to the overall rapid warming of the entire planet that has been scientifically observed over the last century or so, but particularly since the 1970s.
> ...



You really are totally fucking clueless.. Empirical evidence says NO to your CO2 monster and i have shown you over and over that lie is exposed.  You  really are a clueless marxist piece of work..


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 13, 2014)

Now Billy Boob, let's have a link to your proof.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 13, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


You have no evidence, retard, "empirical" or otherwise. All you've got are your moldy old denier cult myths and the moronic pseudo-science bullshit you scrape off of denier cult blogs and astroturfed fossil fuel industry propaganda outlets. All of the lying drivel you post gets immediately debunked with the facts, but you're too much of a brainwashed troll to admit that.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 14, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Did the oceans swallow up Florida yet?  Did the north pole melt yet?  ROFL you libtards are so funny.


----------



## Crick (Nov 14, 2014)




----------



## Crick (Nov 14, 2014)

As the graph says, the trend since 1992 is 3.2 mm/yr.  The trend since 2011, however, looks closer to 19 mm/yr.  With no further acceleration, that would give us over 5'4" of sea level rise by 2100.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 14, 2014)

Crick said:


>


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 14, 2014)




----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 14, 2014)

Crick said:


> As the graph says, the trend since 1992 is 3.2 mm/yr.  The trend since 2011, however, looks closer to 19 mm/yr.  With no further acceleration, that would give us over 5'4" of sea level rise by 2100.


mm... lol why not change the chart to micro meters and make it over a few months?  That way you can show it going almost straight up


----------



## mamooth (Nov 14, 2014)

I do see why deniers have such a strong incentive to deny the reality of sea level rise, no matter how crazy or stupid it makes them look. The current fast sea level rise can't be explained by anything other than global warming. If they admit to sea level rise, they admit to global warming, and the whole basis for their cult falls apart.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 14, 2014)

mamooth said:


> I do see why deniers have such a strong incentive to deny the reality of sea level rise, no matter how crazy or stupid it makes them look. The current fast sea level rise can't be explained by anything other than global warming. If they admit to sea level rise, they admit to global warming, and the whole basis for their cult falls apart.


Yep, you can.  We know because people aren't moving away from the coast, instead they are moving closer.  But hey, you stay in Alice's playland, you're having a ball I can tell.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 14, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Did anyone ever claim that the oceans would have swallowed up Florida by now. No. Just starting to happen by now - yes. Rising sea levels are already impacting Florida, as most of the residents are well aware, even if most of the rightwingnut politicians are in denial. 

And yeah, nutbagger, the North Pole has melted enormously, no matter what crackpot myths and lies you've moronically fallen for.

*Miami Finds Itself Ankle-Deep in Climate Change Debate*
The New York Times
By CORAL DAVENPORT
MAY 7, 2014




_*Scenes of street flooding, like this one on Alton Road in Miami Beach in November, are becoming increasingly common. Credit - Angel Valentin for The New York Times
*_
*MIAMI BEACH — The sunny-day flooding was happening again. During high tide one recent afternoon, Eliseo Toussaint looked out the window of his Alton Road laundromat and watched bottle-green saltwater seep from the gutters, fill the street and block the entrance to his front door.

“This never used to happen,” Mr. Toussaint said. “I’ve owned this place eight years, and now it’s all the time.”

Down the block at an electronics store it is even worse. Jankel Aleman, a salesman, keeps plastic bags and rubber bands handy to wrap around his feet when he trudges from his car to the store through ever-rising waters.

A new scientific report on global warming released this week, the National Climate Assessment, named Miami as one of the cities most vulnerable to severe damage as a result of rising sea levels. Alton Road, a commercial thoroughfare in the heart of stylish South Beach, is getting early ripples of sea level rise caused by global warming — even as Florida’s politicians, including two possible contenders for the presidency in 2016, are starkly at odds over what to do about it and whether the problem is even real.

“The theme of the report is that climate change is not a future thing, it’s a ‘happening-now’ thing,” said Leonard Berry, a contributing author of the new report and director of the Florida Center for Environmental Studies at Florida Atlantic University. “Alton Road is one of the now things.”

Sea levels have risen eight inches since 1870, according to the new report, which projects a further rise of one to four feet by the end of the century. Waters around southeast Florida could surge up to two feet by 2060, according to a report by the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Compact. A study by the Florida Department of Transportation concluded that over the next 35 years, rising sea levels will increasingly flood and damage smaller local roads in the Miami area.

The national climate report found that although rapidly melting Arctic ice is threatening the entire American coastline, Miami is exceptionally vulnerable because of its unique geology. The city is built on top of porous limestone, which is already allowing the rising seas to soak into the city’s foundation, bubble up through pipes and drains, encroach on fresh water supplies and saturate infrastructure. County governments estimate that the damages could rise to billions or even trillions of dollars.

The world will get serious about dealing with climate change only when the seas begin to flood the beachside homes of the rich and powerful.

In and around Miami, local officials are grappling head on with the problem. “Sea level rise is our reality in Miami Beach,” said the city’s mayor, Philip Levine. “We are past the point of debating the existence of climate change and are now focusing on adapting to current and future threats.” In the face of encroaching saltwater and sunny-day flooding like that on Alton Road, Mr. Levine has supported a $400 million spending project to make the city’s drainage system more resilient in the face of rising tides.

But while local politicians can take action to shore up their community against the rising tide, they are powerless to stop what scientists say is the heart of the problem: the increasing fossil fuel emissions that continue to warm the planet. Scientists say that the scale of emission reductions necessary to prevent the most dangerous effects of global warming can only come as a result of national and international policies to cut carbon pollution.

In particular, climate experts say, national policies to tax or regulate carbon pollution are required by the world’s top emitters, chiefly the United States and China. Such efforts have to date met a wave of political opposition in Congress — bills aimed at putting a price on carbon pollution have repeatedly failed. President Obama plans to use his executive authority to issue a regulation that would cut carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants, but Republicans, who call the rule a “War on Coal,” want to overturn it.

Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, supports carbon-cutting efforts, even as he acknowledges that they will come with some economic cost. In April, he convened a packed hearing at the Miami Beach City Hall on the encroaching waters.

“With sea level rise, you’ve got to get to core of the problem,” Mr. Nelson said at the hearing. “You have to lessen the amount of CO2. It’s politically treacherous and costly. But at the end of the day, something like that is going to have to get passed. Otherwise the planet is going to continue to heat up.”

But three prominent Florida Republicans — Senator Marco Rubio, former Gov. Jeb Bush and the current governor, Rick Scott — declined repeated requests to be interviewed on the subject. Mr. Rubio and Mr. Bush are viewed as potential presidential candidates. Political analysts say the reluctance of the three men to speak publicly on the issue reflects an increasingly difficult political reality for Republicans grappling with the issue of climate change, particularly for the party’s lawmakers from Florida. In acknowledging the problem, politicians must endorse a solution, but the only major policy solutions to climate change — taxing or regulating the oil, gas and coal industries — are anathema to the base of the Republican Party. Thus, many Republicans, especially in Florida, appear to be dealing with the issue by keeping silent.

“Jeb likes to take positions on hot-button issues, the same with Rubio,” said Joseph E. Uscinski, a political scientist at the University of Miami. “On immigration they are further mainstream on that than the rest of the G.O.P. But on this, Republicans are dead set against taking action on climate change on the national level. If you have political aspirations, this is not something you should talk about if you want to win a Republican primary.”

Over the past year, Mr. Rubio has signaled his skepticism about the established science that fossil fuel emissions contribute to climate change. When asked in a 2013 Buzzfeed webcast interview if climate change posed a threat to Florida, Mr. Rubio responded: “The climate is always changing. The question is, is manmade activity what’s contributing most to it?” He added that “I’ve seen reasonable debate on that principle” and “if we unilaterally impose these sorts of things on our economy it would have a devastating impact.”

But in 2008, while serving in the Florida State Legislature, Mr. Rubio supported a bill directing the State Department of Environmental Protection to develop rules for companies to limit carbon emissions.

As governor from 1999 to 2007, Mr. Bush pushed several environmental initiatives, particularly efforts to protect Everglades National Park, which scientists say is highly vulnerable to encroaching seawaters. Political scientists say that Mr. Rubio’s shift and Mr. Bush’s current silence on the issue appear to reflect the position of lawmakers who are mulling transitions from the state to the national stage and the realities of satisfying their party’s base in the 2016 primaries.*


----------



## jc456 (Nov 14, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 hahahaahahaahhahahahaahhahaha...................................hahaahhahahahahahhahaahhahaahaa, It's ashame you don't know what weather is.  I'm not surprised though.  Keep it up, I enjoy the comedy!


----------



## mamooth (Nov 14, 2014)

So jc is now claiming that sunny weather is the factor causing flooding in Miami.

The normal people, however, are pointing out that high tides there now regularly cause flooding, something that didn't happen before, and that's because rising sea levels are making the high tides higher.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 14, 2014)

mamooth said:


> So jc is now claiming that sunny weather is the factor causing flooding in Miami.
> 
> The normal people, however, are pointing out that high tides there now regularly cause flooding, something that didn't happen before, and that's because rising sea levels are making the high tides higher.


 And yet folks keep moving there.....hmmmmmmmmm I guess they all are stupid right?


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 14, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Vacuous insanity! As we've all come to expect from ol' JustCrazy, who is actually stupid enough to think that persistent increasing flooding equals "_weather_".


----------



## jc456 (Nov 14, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 Naw... I know that when the tides are high, the moon is most likely full.  And I know that when it rains 9 inches of rain in a day, that streets will most likely get flooded.


----------



## Crick (Nov 14, 2014)

Wow, you smart.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 14, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



ROFL these libtards are the dumbest animals on the planet.

Back in the 70s we'd row canoes up and down the streets in Florida nearly every time it rained.  .. Solution?  Dredge more and deeper canals.  Voila!  Course back then we didn't know how stupid we were not be be frozen in terror as the big bad global change monster came to drown us all.  Clearly what we should have done is kill all the cows in florida to ease global warming, see then we wouldn't need the canals.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 14, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


LOLOLOLOL.....sooooo retarded......JustCrazy pretends to think that when they talk about "*sunny-day flooding*" , they really mean "_when it rains 9 inches of rain in a day_"....LOLOL.

*MIAMI BEACH — The sunny-day flooding was happening again. During high tide one recent afternoon, Eliseo Toussaint looked out the window of his Alton Road laundromat and watched bottle-green saltwater seep from the gutters, fill the street and block the entrance to his front door. “This never used to happen,” Mr. Toussaint said. “I’ve owned this place eight years, and now it’s all the time.”
*
And ol' JustCrazy also pretends to think that Florida officials are wackos who are just making it all up......LOLOL....

*In and around Miami, local officials are grappling head on with the problem. “Sea level rise is our reality in Miami Beach,” said the city’s mayor, Philip Levine. “We are past the point of debating the existence of climate change and are now focusing on adapting to current and future threats.”*


----------



## jc456 (Nov 14, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


I believe the man stated high tide.  I believe that was in my post, so not sure what your point is since you never have one.

Edit:  BTW, the sun can shine after a storm mr. braindead!!!!


----------



## Crick (Nov 14, 2014)

I would have thought it pretty obvious Mr 456 that the first flooding to be caused by rising sea levels would take place at high tide.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 14, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> You have no evidence, retard, "empirical" or otherwise. All you've got are your moldy old denier cult myths and the moronic pseudo-science bullshit you scrape off of denier cult blogs and astroturfed fossil fuel industry propaganda outlets. All of the lying drivel you post gets immediately debunked with the facts, but you're too much of a brainwashed troll to admit that.



Boy Blunder refuses to admit defeat. He Lies like a rug..  Its fun to watch this moron struggle to even get a single cognitive thought out..

The only thing astrotrufed is the alarmist (or should I say PAID propagandists) that try and hide here.

Even NOAA is now running away from the hottest year Ev'a...


> THE NORTH ATLANTIC OSCILLATION (NAO) IS FORECAST TO DROP INTO
> THE NEGATIVE PHASE OVER THE NEXT 10 DAYS. TYPICALLY...THE NAO
> CAN BE PREDICTED AT MOST UP TO 2 WEEKS IN ADVANCE. A SIMILAR
> TREND IS EXPECTED OUT TO 14 DAYS. A NEGATIVE NAO INDICATES
> ...




Source


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 14, 2014)

Crick said:


> As the graph says, the trend since 1992 is 3.2 mm/yr.  The trend since 2011, however, looks closer to 19 mm/yr.  With no further acceleration, that would give us over 5'4" of sea level rise by 2100.




Holy HORSE SHIT!!!!   were all gonna drowned....  What a bunch of MODELED bull shit!


----------



## Crick (Nov 14, 2014)

Modeled?  You believe the data that graph displays come from a model?

"GMSL from TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason-1 and Jason-2 satellite altimeter data"

Hmm... odd name for a model.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 14, 2014)

And BoobyBobNutJob spews more demented drivel.....as usual.

*The Planet Just Had Its Hottest October On Record*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 14, 2014)

Crick said:


> Modeled?  You believe the data that graph displays come from a model?
> 
> "GMSL from TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason-1 and Jason-2 satellite altimeter data"
> 
> Hmm... odd name for a model.



So you are now the grammar and spelling police as well?


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 15, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Modeled?  You believe the data that graph displays come from a model?
> ...


Your moronic error of confusing instrumental data with "_models_", which Crick was pointing out, has absolutely nothing to do with either "_grammar_" or "_spelling_", you flaming fruitcake

Even after some experience with you and your retarded drivel, sometimes your outright imbecile-level stupidity is just jaw dropping, BoobyBob.


----------



## Crick (Nov 15, 2014)

Grammar and spelling?  How do you manage to be that stupid?  "GMSL from TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason-1 and Jason-2 satellite altimeter data" was the label on the graph you claimed was the output of a model.  Do you not understand what it means?  Were you aware that TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason-1 and Jason-2 are satellites with altimeters used to measure sea level?  Did you not comprehend that the data on the graph came from the altimeters of those satellites?  Where the fuck did you get the idea it came from a model?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 15, 2014)

As I have stated before, either Billy Boob is an adolescent, or he or she is slightly retarded.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 15, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


OMG it's high tide we're all gonna drown!!!!  ROFL


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 15, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> As I have stated before, either Billy Boob is an adolescent, or he or she is slightly retarded.


Say's the dumb ass that believes cow farts and human breathing is destroying the planet. ROFL leftards are sooooo funny.  Everyone know global warming is a hoax, get with the program.


----------



## Crick (Nov 15, 2014)

He's made no mistakes.  You seem to make nothing but.  This one short post has three major errors, not counting the juvenile syntax.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 15, 2014)

Crick said:


> Modeled?  You believe the data that graph displays come from a model?
> 
> "GMSL from TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason-1 and Jason-2 satellite altimeter data"
> 
> Hmm... odd name for a model.


all data from those platforms are run through a model which generates the plotted data. They make adjustments to the raw data in the model.  But hey, you cant have the real unaltered data out for others to use..


----------



## mamooth (Nov 15, 2014)

Billy, is it part of your Ph.D program to auto-declare how all the data is a socialist conspiracy?


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 15, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> all data from those platforms are run through a model which generates the plotted data. They make adjustments to the raw data in the model.  But hey, you cant have the real unaltered data out for others to use..


Moronic lies from the insane retard BoobyBobNutJob.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 21, 2014)

NOAA's October analysis just came out and it confirms that the Earth just experienced its second consequetive 'hottest 12 month period' on record, surpassing the previous record set last month. October is the third consequetive month and the fifth month in the last six months to be the hottest month of that name on record. April of this year was tied with April 2010 as the hottest April on record. With the exception of February, every month to date in 2014 has ranked among the four warmest on record for its respective month. The 2014 calander year will almost certainly be the new official 'hottest year on record' globally.

*NOAA - Global Analysis - October 2014*
*With records dating back to 1880, the global temperature averaged across the world's land and ocean surfaces for October 2014 was the highest on record for the month, at 0.74°C (1.33°F) above the 20thcentury average. This also marks the third consecutive month and fifth of the past six with a record high global temperature for its respective month (July was fourth highest). 

The record high October temperature was driven by warmth across the globe over both the land and ocean surfaces and was fairly evenly distributed between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. The Southern Hemisphere was record warm overall with a record high land surface temperature for the month. The Northern Hemisphere was third warmest on record for October, with a record high average sea surface temperature.

The first ten months of 2014 (January–October) were the warmest such period since record keeping began in 1880, with a combined global land and ocean average surface temperature 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average of 14.1°C (57.4°F), surpassing the previous record set in 1998 and tied in 2010 by 0.02°C (0.04°F). 2014 is currently on track to be the warmest year on record.

The most recent 12-month period, November 2013–October 2014, broke the record (set just last month) for the all-time warmest 12-month period in the 135-year period of record, at 0.68°C (1.22°F) above average, with November 2013 and May, June, August, September, and October 2014 all record warm for their respective months.*


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 21, 2014)

It's really funny how afraid of this thread the denier cultists are. The Earth has already just experienced its hottest 12 month 'year' on record - twice. This collapses their deranged myths and foolish cultic fantasies and makes their heads explode.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 22, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> It's really funny how afraid of this thread the denier cultists are. The Earth has already just experienced its hottest 12 month 'year' on record - twice. This collapses their deranged myths and foolish cultic fantasies and makes their heads explode.


You're a moron.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 22, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > It's really funny how afraid of this thread the denier cultists are. The Earth has already just experienced its hottest 12 month 'year' on record - twice. This collapses their deranged myths and foolish cultic fantasies and makes their heads explode.
> ...


Riiiiight.....I point out what the world's scientists are saying, almost unamimously, and, to you, that makes me a "_moron_"....but you deny the testimony of the world scientific community and the massive amounts of direct evidence that everybody can see, and instead cling to idiotic pseudo-science and crackpot conspiracy theories cooked up by the people with the deeply vested financial interests in the fossil fuel industry, and that makes you a 'genius' _in your own mind_.....LOLOLOLOL.....you are either a paid troll or a bamboozled moronic dupe of the propaganda campaign.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 22, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > It's really funny how afraid of this thread the denier cultists are. The Earth has already just experienced its hottest 12 month 'year' on record - twice. This collapses their deranged myths and foolish cultic fantasies and makes their heads explode.
> ...





Indeed........but *ROLLING THUNDER* is a priceless gem in this forum!! To myself, JC, Frank, SSDD et. al..........he cant post enough in here for our liking.
We are not in here to try for a nanosecond to change the minds of mental cases..........we just sit back and watch their heads explode with the content in every post..........the misery, anger and rage!!!

Curious people wandering into this forum to get a barometer on the real deal with climate change get it............


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 22, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


You're nothing more than a mouthpiece for a political agenda.  Here, read this:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136



> Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."
> 
> Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."
> 
> ...


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 22, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



You are a deluded retard. Your fraudulent article was written by the president of the Heartland Institute, a corporate propaganda outlet that is being paid by the fossil fuel industry to pump out deceitful propaganda and lies. Dr. Spencer is one of the very few actual denier cult scientists but he is a quack whose work has been shown to have a constant bias towards reporting less warming. In addition...
*Opposition to evolution and embrace of "intelligent design"
Spencer has been an active in advocating Intelligent Design over evolution, and argued in 2005 that its teaching should be mandatory in schools[19]. Working with the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, Spencer has been part of an effort to advocate environmental policy that is based on a "Biblical view" rather than science. As a defender of "Intelligent Design" creationism, Spencer has asserted that the scientific theory of evolution is really just a kind of religion.[20]*

Meanwhile.....in the real world.....
*Dr. James L. Powell*





*Polls show that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming. If they do, articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals, the gold standard of science, will reveal the disagreement.

I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 12 November 2012 that have the keyword phrases "global warming" or "global climate change." The search produced 13,950 articles. See methodology.

I read whatever combination of titles, abstracts, and entire articles was necessary to identify articles that "reject" human-caused global warming. To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming. Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming. Articles about methods, paleoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation, and effects at least implicitly accept human-caused global warming and were usually obvious from the title alone. John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli also reviewed and assigned some of these articles; John provided invaluable technical expertise.

This work follows that of Oreskes (Science, 2005) who searched for articles published between 1993 and 2003 with the keyword phrase “global climate change.” She found 928, read the abstracts of each and classified them. None rejected human-caused global warming. Using her criteria and time-span, I get the same result. Deniers attacked Oreskes and her findings, but they have held up.

Some articles on global warming may use other keywords, for example, “climate change” without the "global" prefix. But there is no reason to think that the proportion rejecting global warming would be any higher. 
By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is here. The 24 articles have been cited a total of 113 times over the nearly 21-year period, for an average of close to 5 citations each. That compares to an average of about 19 citations for articles answering to "global warming," for example. Four of the rejecting articles have never been cited; four have citations in the double-digits. The most-cited has 17. For an analysis of the 113 citations, see here. Only 50 of the citing articles are truly independent and peer-reviewed. 

Of one thing we can be certain: had any of the 24 articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science. If there were such an article, one would not have to hunt for it. 






The articles have a total of 33,690 individual authors. The 24 rejecting papers have a total of 34 authors, about 1 in 1,000. 

The top ten countries represented among the authors of all the articles are, in order: USA, England, China, Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia, France, Spain, and Netherlands. Roughly 35 percent of the articles were about the impacts of global warming, 30 percent about mitigation, 30 percent about methods, and 5 percent about paleoclimates, without much change over the 20 years. 

Global warming deniers often claim that bias prevents them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. But 24 articles in 18 different journals, collectively making several different arguments against global warming, expose that claim as false. Articles rejecting global warming can be published, but those that have been have earned little support or notice, even from other deniers.

A few deniers have become well known from newspaper interviews, Congressional hearings, conferences of climate change critics, books, lectures, websites and the like. Their names are conspicuously rare among the authors of the rejecting articles. Like those authors, the prominent deniers must have no evidence that falsifies global warming. Anyone can repeat this search and post their findings. To sample the most recent 500 articles, click here. Another reviewer would likely have slightly different standards than mine and get a different number of rejecting articles. But no one will be able to reach a different conclusion, for only one conclusion is possible: Within science, global warming denial has virtually no influence. Its influence is instead on a misguided media, politicians all-too-willing to deny science for their own gain, and a gullible public. 

Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree.*







*Here I bring my previous study up-to-date by reviewing peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals over the period from Nov. 12, 2012 through December 31, 2013. I found 2,258 articles, written by a total of 9,136 authors. Only one article, by a single author in the Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, rejected man-made global warming. I discuss that article here.*


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 22, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...




I think the funniest thing about that is.........over 10,000 articles and still, nobody is impressed!!!


As Ive said so many times in this forum........even if we all concur that there is a "consensus" on the science, is still not mattering in the real world!!

Heres the analogy.........in the motorsports world, there is a fringe breed of racing called tractor pulling!!! High horsepower tractors pull sleds down a dirt strip. Fans of the sport say there is nothing like it in the world. But nobody cares about tractor pulling racing.....they have about 179 fans.

The AGW world has spent 20 years telling us about their "consensus" science for the expressed purpose of getting people to buy into renewable energy. 20+ years and still nobody is caring........renewable energy is still an extreme fringe energy source. Both wind and solar account for less than 3% in the US = the science isn't mattering. In 2040, all energy projections, including that of Obama's EIA say renewables will still be <10%. 

Which means, Mashimoto, when seeing Rolling Thunders latest mega-post said..........


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 22, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> *Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree.*





skookerasbil said:


> I think the funniest thing about that is.........over 10,000 articles and still, nobody is impressed!!!


Well, "_nobody_" in the circle of ignorant anti-science rightwingnut retards that you know, anyway.

In the real world, most of the people in most countries consider AGW/CC one of the biggest threats their country faces.

*Many around the world see climate change as a major threat*
*Global climate change was the top-rated threat in a 39-nation Pew Research Center survey conducted in spring 2013. A median of 54% across these countries said global climate change was a major threat to their country, slightly more than the 52% who said this about international financial instability. High levels of concern were also expressed about Islamic extremist groups, as well as the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs.*


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 22, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > *Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree.*
> ...





Who fucking cares.........."across these countries".................


s0n...........I hate to break it to you and not sure what little Bumfook town you live in but words don't mean shit in life. Only behavior matters.

So......how is this perception of a "major threat" translating in the real world............stupid??!!!


The "ignorant rightwingnut retards" are winning.............big. The science the AGW OCD's thump their chests about hasn't has ANY impact on world policymakers who continue to use coal, oil and natural gas in silly-ass quantities. ( go look at any graph you want  ).........and will continue to use coal, natural gas and oil in silly-ass quantities for decades.


Maybe if you make that font a bit bigger s0n, it might change the whoooooooooooooooole landscape for the AGW OCD's!!


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 23, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



More idiotic drivel from the forum's resident retarded kook.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 23, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> You are a deluded retard. Your fraudulent article was written by the president of the Heartland Institute, a corporate propaganda outlet that is being paid by the fossil fuel industry to pump out deceitful propaganda and lies. Dr. Spencer is one of the very few actual denier cult scientists but he is a quack whose work has been shown to have a constant bias towards reporting less warming. In addition...
> *Opposition to evolution and embrace of "intelligent design"
> Spencer has been an active in advocating Intelligent Design over evolution, and argued in 2005 that its teaching should be mandatory in schools[19]. Working with the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, Spencer has been part of an effort to advocate environmental policy that is based on a "Biblical view" rather than science. As a defender of "Intelligent Design" creationism, Spencer has asserted that the scientific theory of evolution is really just a kind of religion.[20]*
> 
> ...



You post that same crap over and over and over.. Full well knowing its crap and a lie.. It was exposed just as John Cooks lie was exposed..

Legates Et Al. The anthology of the SKS kooks Cook and Bedford is amazing.. And some here reflect it too in their blind belief in a fools errand called CAGW.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 23, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > You are a deluded retard. Your fraudulent article was written by the president of the Heartland Institute, a corporate propaganda outlet that is being paid by the fossil fuel industry to pump out deceitful propaganda and lies. Dr. Spencer is one of the very few actual denier cult scientists but he is a quack whose work has been shown to have a constant bias towards reporting less warming. In addition...
> ...


Bullshit! Just like always from you, BoobyBobNutJob.

Dr. Powell's analysis of the scientific literature has not been successfully challenged, in spite of whatever deranged nonsense your anti-science denier cult myths are lying to you about, and his methodology is published and repeatable by anyone.

His results show that out of the 13,950 scientific peer reviewed articles about the climate published between 1991 and 2012, only 24 reject anthropogenic global warming, and out of the 2258 similar articles, written by 9136 authors, published between November 2012 and December 2013, only one article by one author disputed AGW.

Dr. Powell's studies of the scientific literature concerning global warming looked specifically at the number of papers rejecting or disputing the basic scientific understanding of the current human caused warming trend. *His studies say nothing about the number of papers that specifically talk about the human causes of the current warming.* Few do. Any more than the scientific papers on space travel which very seldom (or never) bother to include arguments about the reality of gravity. It's assumed.

As Dr. Powell said:
*"Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree."*

So, there goes your next little straw-man argument, blown to hell like all the rest of your anti-science denier cult myths and fantasies.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 23, 2014)

I am 80% sure we will get the recon on Giss and Noaa. The 20% is the fact that the land masses are seriously cooling off and if that keeps up it could threaten to take the record away.

The energy is going back into the oceans.


----------



## Judicial review (Nov 23, 2014)

I farTed I just polluted the air. Fuck you libs. Ha!


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 23, 2014)

natrualgas said:


> I farTed I just polluted the air. Fuck you libs. Ha!



Do you have a data set? The closes one is UAH..Which is also heading for a record! http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2014/October2014/october2014_GTR.pdf


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 24, 2014)

natrualgas said:


> I farTed I just polluted the air. Fuck you libs. Ha!


Now that is the level of intellect and debate to be expected from a 'Conservative'.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 so what is your intentions with this?  Are you trying to change minds that are already made up because the obvious is failing?


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 24, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


My "_intentions_" are obvious....to debunk the bogus bullshit, pseudo-science, lies and propaganda that you anti-science denier cultists try to push at the direction of your puppetmasters in the fossil fuel industry. 

"_Trying to change minds_" like yours "_that are already made up_" in spite of all of the evidence and the testimony of the world scientific community, would be impossible....simply because you and the other denier cultists are far too ignorant, retarded and ideologically brainwashed to be capable of accepting the facts about AGW. So I just debunk your BS and mock your stupidity and ignorance.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 24, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


Moron.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 24, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 24, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





RKMBrown said:


> Moron.


Yes, you are, in spades. A fact you make crystal clear every time you post your ignorant insanity, ReallyBrownShit.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


Why does it bother you what someone else believes?  Why is it important for you to try an change someone's mind?  Are you jealous?  Do you lack something?  Not sure why you get all hot and bothered, as entertaining as it is, makes you look like a k00k.  Don't get why it's important to you?

Especially when your said scientists can't answer one easy question.  hmmmm... why is that?


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 24, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


The usual insane and very clueless drivel from ol' JustCrazy. See post #511.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 again, so are you jealous of those who don't believe what you do?  Do you wish you had the ability to use your mind and expand?  Still haven't stated why it bothers you that I think differently than you? Are you afraid of me?   Boooo!!!!!


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 24, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


I bet he cries a tear for everyone that refuses to live life in fear of our atmosphere.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 24, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


More demented drivel with no connection to reality or the topic of this thread. The usual denier cult attempt to distract from the topic and derail the thread with meaningless nonsense, whenever their bogus myths get debunked by the facts.

In the real world....

*NOAA - Global Analysis - October 2014
The first ten months of 2014 (January–October) were the warmest such period since record keeping began in 1880, with a combined global land and ocean average surface temperature 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average of 14.1°C (57.4°F), surpassing the previous record set in 1998 and tied in 2010 by 0.02°C (0.04°F). 2014 is currently on track to be the warmest year on record.

The most recent 12-month period, November 2013–October 2014, broke the record (set just last month) for the all-time warmest 12-month period in the 135-year period of record, at 0.68°C (1.22°F) above average, with November 2013 and May, June, August, September, and October 2014 all record warm for their respective months. (originally published as 0.69°C, corrected 20 Nov 2014)*


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 Dude we don't give a shlt!  We don't agree with you, accept it and stop fighting it, you look foolish.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 24, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





jc456 said:


> Dude we don't give a shlt!


Of course you don't....you're a brainwashed rightwingnut retard, too lost in your ideological/political/economic fantasies to face reality.....no surprise there....






jc456 said:


> We don't agree with you, accept it and stop fighting it, you look foolish.


Nobody cares what clueless ignorant denier cult retards like you "_agree with_", JustCrazy. The sane adults are here to debunk your lies and crackpot propaganda, not convince you morons. You are obviously too stupid to ever realize how deluded you are.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 sure you do, otherwise you wouldn't want to "change my mind" you fool.  You are truely a clueless fool who doesn't know anything to what he discusses. WiNniNg


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 24, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


This dude is so foolish he uses large bold brown fonts in his sig line.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


he's a want-a-be.

Edit: BTW, I love his, you will believe as me mentality or else!!!!!


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 24, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


It must suck having to talk using only "cut-and-paste."


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 24, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


LOLOLOLOL.....too bad you don't have a functioning "_mind_" in the first place, JustCrazy....so no worries about anyone "_changing_" what doesn't exist....


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 24, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > *NOAA - Global Analysis - October 2014
> ...


It must suck even worse to have, as you do, ReallyBrownShit, the intelligence of a brain-damaged chipmunk. Does the nurse at your mental hospital have to turn on your computer for you?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 
Dude....keep showing your ignorance friend. You can't seem to control your feelings.  Can you?


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 24, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


What color is your shit? Pink? 

Since when do chipmunks have genius level IQs? 

I've never been to a mental hospital, do they have computers there?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 They must, he's on one!!!!


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 24, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


Wouldn't it be funny if someone did a whois on his IP Address and got back a mental hospital..


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 24, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > It must suck even worse to have, as you do, ReallyBrownShit, the intelligence of a brain-damaged chipmunk. Does the nurse at your mental hospital have to turn on your computer for you?
> ...


I was referring to stuff between your ears, that periodically pours out of your mouth, identifying you as one of the severely retarded, mentally handicapped, brain-damaged imbeciles.






RKMBrown said:


> Since when do chipmunks have genius level IQs?


Asks the clueless retard with the IQ of a brain-damaged chipmunk. LOLOLOL. No comprehension whatsoever.







RKMBrown said:


> I've never been to a mental hospital, do they have computers there?


Oh, so they haven't managed to net you up yet, and get you to where you belong? Too bad. You desperately need to be institutionalized for your own protection, you poor insane wacko.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 24, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


Why do you put shit between your ears?  That sounds really dumb..

You know a brain-damaged chipmunk with a genius level IQ?  link pls.

Is that how they bagged your ass, a net?  We only use nets for animals around here.  Guess that's appropriate for your stupid ass. What did they put you in for, Thermophobia?


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 25, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Such confusion is the hallmark of the rightwingnut imbecile squad. Perhaps you're their leader?

What I said was that the deranged shit between your ears pours out your mouth, but I never implied that I would touch that crap with a ten foot pole.








RKMBrown said:


> You know a brain-damaged chipmunk with a genius level IQ?  link pls.


Nope, never heard of such a thing. But I do know a really retarded character with the IQ of a brain-damaged chipmunk who is so severely afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect that he has some crackpot  delusions about being secretly 'smart'. He calls himself ReallyKrazyMoronBrown.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Why do you put shit between your ears?  That sounds really dumb..
> 
> You know a brain-damaged chipmunk with a genius level IQ?  link pls.
> 
> Is that how they bagged your ass, a net?  We only use nets for animals around here.  Guess that's appropriate for your stupid ass. What did they put you in for, Thermophobia?



Take it easy on thunder...he is damaged goods...he is a victim.  Either systematic abuse throughout his formative years, or a single devastatingly traumatic event that he never learned to deal with.  Hard to tell which.  In any event, it has left him in a place where he feels inferior to, and therefore threatened by everyone who doesn't agree with him.  He can only see disagreement as aggression on the part of whoever it is coming from.  He can't see that peers can disagree on topics.  Unfortunately, the only coping mechanism that he has been able to come up with involves behavior that broadcast his feelings of inferiority and intimidation and as such brings more of the very thing he seeks to avoid right to his doorstep.  He believes that his all caps...bold....colored text is more powerful than your normal conversation and thinks that it proves that he is neither intimidated nor threatened by your disagreement with him.

Cut him a bit of slack...any of us could have ended up just like him had the cards been dealt just a little bit differently.  He can't seek help because he sees the very help he needs as threatening and intimidating.  It is a tragic situation for him and he will likely never get out of it.  Cut him a bit of slack.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 25, 2014)

SSDD said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you put shit between your ears?  That sounds really dumb..
> ...


 Maybe he's been too busy cleaning up after the shit between his ears that flows out his mouth.  Must be hard to operate when you open your mouth and your shit falls out.  He's even kind enough to provide a descriptive view of his issue.  He should probably see a doctor.  Oh, the doctor may tell him it is already settled. hahahahahahaahahahhahaha


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 25, 2014)

SSDD said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you put shit between your ears?  That sounds really dumb..
> ...


Ok... but someone at least tell him that crazy is spelled with a "c" not a "k."


----------



## jc456 (Nov 25, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 he reminists about Animal House and still believes today that the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 25, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Loved that movie!  Miss Belushi, he was a powder keg of fun.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 25, 2014)

Here, someone is actually looking into this garbage ...link:

Artical belongs to--
Tom Luongo
Proud Member of the _Cold Truth Initiative_

Thanks Tom and John Casey!!!! read and weep warmists!


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 25, 2014)

There go half a dozen more worthless posts, mostly off-topic, from the denier cult retard chorus.

The Earth is warming. Your denier cult myths about cooling are crackpot nonsense. As the scientific analysis from NOAA that I have repeatedly posted clearly demonstrates.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 25, 2014)

Hottest year on record????

The Great Lakes may hit record ice cover this year Watts Up With That


----------



## jc456 (Nov 25, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> There go half a dozen more worthless posts, mostly off-topic, from the denier cult retard chorus.
> 
> The Earth is warming. Your denier cult myths about cooling are crackpot nonsense. As the scientific analysis from NOAA that I have repeatedly posted clearly demonstrates.


 zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 25, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> There go half a dozen more worthless posts, mostly off-topic, from the denier cult retard chorus.
> 
> The Earth is warming. Your denier cult myths about cooling are crackpot nonsense. As the scientific analysis from NOAA that I have repeatedly posted clearly demonstrates.


Thermophobia - 


> An abnormal and persistent fear of heat, including hot weather and hot objects. Sufferers from thermophobia experience anxietyeven though they realize their fear is irrational. To avoid heat, they may live in a cold climate, wear light clothing, stay indoors on warm days, and avoid hot water and hot foods.
> 
> "Thermophobia" is derived from the Greek "therme" (heat) and "phobos" (fear). This same Greek word has given us many English words, such as "thermometer" (a device for measuring temperature) and "thermostat" (a device for regulating temperature).
> 
> The opposite of thermophobia is cryophobia, fear of the cold.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 25, 2014)

Fudged data


> Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.
> When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found nothing more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous “hockey stick” graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter than at any time in 1,000 years. Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 25, 2014)

Fudge for brains. "Officially approved scientists"? What the hell does that mean? 

*Once again, every Scientific Society in every nation on earth states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Same for every nation that has a National Academy of Science. Same for every major University on this planet. Only fruit loops like Goddard state otherwise.*

steven goddard Climate Denial Crock of the Week

How low are they going? This low.

The blogger who won’t even tell us his real name, even though it is now open source, Steven Goddard, has been cited as an authority on climate.
Kind of like citing Orly Taitz as an authority on Kenyan Birth certificates. Did I mention “Goddard” is a birther, too? (not unusual in denierville – see below)


----------



## jc456 (Nov 25, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Fudge for brains. "Officially approved scientists"? What the hell does that mean?
> 
> *Once again, every Scientific Society in every nation on earth states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Same for every nation that has a National Academy of Science. Same for every major University on this planet. Only fruit loops like Goddard state otherwise.*
> 
> ...


 it means they figured out how to fudge data.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 25, 2014)

Ernie S. said:


> Fudged data....Goddard



Denier cult dementia. 

There is no "Steven Goddard".....it is a pseudonym for a denier cult blogger (and 'birther' loon) named 'Tony Heller'. "Steve Goddard", AKA 'Tony Heller', does not have any education, experience or background in climate science. He has primarily published his articles in blogs and newspapers using a pseudonym, and he has never been published in a peer-reviewed science journal on the subject.

As one environmental scientist put it when asked about 'Goddard'....
"*Goddard is your typical know nothing AGW denier blogger. He used to be a regular guest author on WattsUpWithThat, except that he became a regular embarrassment, and he and Watts parted ways. In one of the worst examples (although there are so many to choose from), Watts had to apologize for the utter stupidity of one of Goddard's articles: 

"My apologies to readers. I'll leave it up (note altered title) as an example of what not to do when graphing trends" 
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/02/ar... 

John Cook rebutted another of Goddard's idiotic WUWT posts here as well: 
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Watts-Up... 

Goddard now runs his own blog. Considering that he was too ignorant even for the exceptionally low standards at WUWT, not surprisingly, very few people actually read it. Apparently it's not his real name and Steven Goddard is a pseudonym, which is funny, because Anthony Watts claims that everybody who writes on his site goes by their real names.*"


----------



## jc456 (Nov 25, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Fudged data....Goddard
> ...


 John Cook = Cartoonist


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 25, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Fudge for brains. "Officially approved scientists"? What the hell does that mean?
> 
> *Once again, every Scientific Society in every nation on earth states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Same for every nation that has a National Academy of Science. Same for every major University on this planet. Only fruit loops like Goddard state otherwise.*
> 
> ...


Reread what I posted. The "officially approved scientists" are of the warmer cult. They have admitted to using fudged data and other remarkably unscientific tactics to advance their cause and maintain their grants.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 25, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Fudged data....Goddard
> ...


Goddard/Heller, at least isn't passing around emails that discredit himself like your boys have.


RollingThunder said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Fudged data....Goddard
> ...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 25, 2014)

Ernie S. said:


> Hottest year on record????
> 
> The Great Lakes may hit record ice cover this year Watts Up With That


I see Boy Blunder is burying his head in the ice again...  The Moron is trying to peddle his hottest year ev'a crap and its all a lie..


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 26, 2014)

Ernie S. said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Fudge for brains. "Officially approved scientists"? What the hell does that mean?
> ...


You swallowed some very insane dener cult myths that have no connection to reality. Nobody "_admitted to using fudged data_" except in your crackpot denier cult myths. In the real world, all the data that climate scientists use is available for anyone to verify. You deniers are gullible loons.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 26, 2014)

Ernie S. said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


Another fallacious denier cult myth with no connection to reality. No one was "_discredited_" and multiple investigations showed there had been no scientific misconduct. You poor gullible retard.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 26, 2014)

What a fruitcake.

We keep having earlier and colder winter weather and there has been no warming for 19 years.   The earth is not warming.

And then there's the little fact that temperatures 1,000 years ago (when CO2 levels were lower) were higher than the present day.  So, we're supposed to destroy our economy, lower our living standards, and pay more taxes for the benefit of Liberal Fake-Eco Billionaires?

No thanks.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 26, 2014)

boedicca said:


> What a fruitcake.


Yeah, you are a complete wacko alright.







boedicca said:


> We keep having earlier and colder winter weather and there has been no warming for 19 years.   The earth is not warming.


Denier cult drivel. In reality winters are starting later and spring is arriving earlier. Winters are warmer, which paradoxically increases snowfall, because warmer air holds more moisture.

*Season creep*
Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia
*In phenology, season creep is observed changes in the timing of the seasons,[1][2] such as earlier indications of spring[3]widely observed in temperate areas across the Northern Hemisphere.[4][5] Phenological records analyzed by climate scientists have shown significant temporal trends in the observed time of seasonal events,[6][7] from the end of the 20th century and continuing into the 21st century.[5][8] In Europe, season creep has been associated with the arrival of spring moving up by approximately one week in a recent 30 year period.[9][10] Other studies have put the rate of season creep measured by plant phenology in the range of 2–3 days per decade advancement in spring, and 0.3–1.6 days per decade delay in autumn, over the past 30–80 years.[11]

Observable changes in nature related to season creep include birds laying their eggs earlier and buds appearing on some trees in late winter.[12] In addition to advanced budding, flowering trees have been blooming earlier, for example the culturally important cherry blossoms in Japan,[13][14] and Washington, D.C.[15][16][17] Northern hardwood forests have been trending toward leafing out sooner, and retaining their green canopies longer.[18] The agricultural growing season has also expanded by 10–20 days over the last few decades.[19]

The effects of season creep have been noted by non-scientists as well, including gardeners who have advanced their spring planting times,[20] and experimented with plantings of less hardy warmer climate varieties of non-native plants.[21] While summer growing seasons are expanding, winters are getting warmer and shorter, resulting in reduced winter ice cover on bodies of water,[22] earlier ice-out,[23] earlier melt water flows,[24] and earlier spring lake level peaks.[25] Some spring events, or "phenophases", have become intermittent or unobservable; for example, bodies of water that once froze regularly most winters now freeze less frequently,[8][26][27] and formerly migratory birds are now seen year-round in some areas.[28]*





boedicca said:


> And then there's the little fact that temperatures 1,000 years ago (when CO2 levels were lower) were higher than the present day.


False. Another denier cult myth. It wouldn't matter though even if it were true. Scientists are very clear that the current warming trend is being caused by the 43% increase in co2 levels that mankind has produced.

You are a denier cult dingbat, full of misinformation, pseudo-science and lies.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 26, 2014)

RT is an idiot.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 26, 2014)

boedicca said:


> RT is an idiot.


The usual lame response of the denier cult wackos when their myths and lies get debunked by the facts.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 26, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > RT is an idiot.
> ...


Idiot - a stupid person.  For example, a person that believes people collecting money to prove global warming, who have been caught making up facts about global warming, are in fact being honest about the made up facts.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 26, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > RT is an idiot.
> ...





RKMBrown said:


> Idiot - a stupid person.


Yup....that's you alright, ReallyKrazyMoron.






RKMBrown said:


> For example, a person that believes people collecting money to prove global warming, who have been caught making up facts about global warming, are in fact being honest about the made up facts.


More idiocy and denier cult lies from the retarded troll. Only in the most insane of the wacko denier cult myths has anyone but the fossil fuel industry propagandists "_been caught making up facts about global warming_".

ReallyKrazyMoron is a conspiracy theory wacko who is insane enough to believe that hundreds of thousands of scientists all around the world are all in a conspiracy to violate their professional ethics, falsify reseach data and publish lies in order to fool the world about the reality of AGW for reasons the deniers can't explain, and, most absurdly, not even one of the scientists in the conspiracy has ever blown the whistle on it to the public or the authorities. The Mafia would be overjoyed if they had a code of silence that worked even half that well. But the denier cult retards swallow that ridiculous nonsense without blinking an eye.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 26, 2014)

RT is a moron.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 26, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > What a fruitcake.
> ...



Wikipedia is the left wits garbage site.  its reputation is zero just like its scientific integrity is zero.   I laugh every time you use it to prove a point because 95% of the info is WRONG... and if you dont like it log in to it and change it...

Its a morons wet dream...  baseless..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 26, 2014)

Well this mean October was not the hottest... This also means when Nov comes in -6 deg F (were currently at -7.1 deg F) it will have a devastating effect on the trend lowering it.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 26, 2014)

I feel a little bad for deniers. Most of them here have sworn a blood oath to a depraved religious cult. That never ends well. I think they're starting to understand what a hellish fate they've signed on for, hence their increasing hysteria.


----------



## RKMBrown (Nov 27, 2014)

mamooth said:


> I feel a little bad for deniers. Most of them here have sworn a blood oath to a depraved religious cult. That never ends well. I think they're starting to understand what a hellish fate they've signed on for, hence their increasing hysteria.


Link?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 28, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > I feel a little bad for deniers. Most of them here have sworn a blood oath to a depraved religious cult. That never ends well. I think they're starting to understand what a hellish fate they've signed on for, hence their increasing hysteria.
> ...


Awe.. The poor little hairball cant even get up the courage to go find facts.. Just content to sit their in its dung heap and wallow..


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 28, 2014)

U.S. British data show 2014 could be hottest year on record Reuters

Nov 27 (Reuters) - This year may eclipse 2010 as the hottest since records began in the 19th century, a sign long-term global warming is being stoked by rising greenhouse gas emissions, scientists said.

The period of January to October 2014 is already among the warmest ever recorded, and a warm ending to the year could easily make it top, according to U.S. and British data.

Skeptics who doubt the necessity of a shift away from fossil fuels to stop the Earth's climate from heating up point out that world average temperatures have not risen much since 1998, despite rising greenhouse gas emissions.

But the final ranking for 2014, due next year, may influence public and business perceptions about the severity of climate change. Almost 200 governments are due to agree a U.N. deal to combat global warming in Paris in December next year.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 28, 2014)

A surge of Arctic air has left much of the continental U.S. shivering in unusually bitter November cold. But this early foray into winter weather is just a small blip in the overall global picture, which is of a warming world that is still on track to see *2014 set the mark for hottest year on record*, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Thursday.

That warming — fueled largely by the manmade *rise of greenhouse gases* in Earth’s atmosphere — is so relentless, in fact, that the odds of seeing a record coldest year in the future are vanishingly small. As the animation below shows, the last time the world experienced a record-coldest year was in 1909, more than 100 years ago. But in that period, 18 records for warmest year have been set, with 2014 likely to be the 19th.

http://www.weather.com/science/environment/news/2014-record-hot

*This is the subject of the thread.*


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 28, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Well this mean October was not the hottest... This also means when Nov comes in -6 deg F (were currently at -7.1 deg F) it will have a devastating effect on the trend lowering it.




Rss is an outlier... Likely something off with it.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 28, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



You expect me to have a link to your dark denier ritual where you signed your soul over to your liege Satan? Sorry, but you didn't supply me with the video. Probably because of the depraved orgy part. At an all-dude ceremony.

I hear you got a $50 Walmart gift card for your soul. Conclusion: Satan was _robbed_. Congratulations on getting the better part of the deal.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 1, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> A surge of Arctic air has left much of the continental U.S. shivering in unusually bitter November cold. But this early foray into winter weather is just a small blip in the overall global picture, which is of a warming world that is still on track to see *2014 set the mark for hottest year on record*, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Thursday.
> 
> That warming — fueled largely by the manmade *rise of greenhouse gases* in Earth’s atmosphere — is so relentless, in fact, that the odds of seeing a record coldest year in the future are vanishingly small. As the animation below shows, the last time the world experienced a record-coldest year was in 1909, more than 100 years ago. But in that period, 18 records for warmest year have been set, with 2014 likely to be the 19th.
> 
> ...



Old Crock spouting off his ADJUSTED crap warming lies...  I grow tired of exposing the lies you charlatans keep spouting..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 1, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Well this mean October was not the hottest... This also means when Nov comes in -6 deg F (were currently at -7.1 deg F) it will have a devastating effect on the trend lowering it.
> ...



Nope... IT matches perfectly with USCRN data.  The most pristine siting and no man induced temperature spikes..  Says its right on the money and the other adjusted piles of crap are just that.. piles of crap.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




Nah.  we don't expect you to have a link to anything.  We expect you to engage in bitter, meaningless drive by sniping, judicious use of whatever the buzzword of the day is like denier, baseless ad homs, and blaming skeptics for precisely the behavior that you are presently engaged in...and you don't disappoint.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 3, 2014)

Even NOAA's data shows that were not so hot.. and that their warmest year ev'a is a lie...

Source


----------



## mamooth (Dec 4, 2014)

The UAH satellite data set reports Nov 2014 as the second hottest November ever, behind 2009. UAH data, from the lower troposphere, shows the same overall trend as the many different sets of surface station data. Temperature peaks and valleys in UAH are bigger. That is, it's "noisier". But the overall average rate of the temperature rise is the same. There's excellent agreement between the UAH satellite data and surface data in regards to the warming.

The RSS satellite data set, OTOH, has turned into a wild outlier. Around 2011, something weird crept into the RSS processing algorithm which has made it read way low compared to everything else. Or it might be because the RSS set is data set with the least coverage. But because they need that cherrypick, most deniers quote the RSS data exclusively now.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 5, 2014)

New report from the World Meteorological Organization confirming what NOAA and NASA have been saying....*2014 will be the next 'hottest year on record'*.

*2014 set to be world's hottest year ever*
The Guardian
Suzanne Goldenberg
Wednesday 3 December 2014
*The world is on course for the hottest year ever in 2014, the United Nations weather agency said on Wednesday, heightening the sense of urgency around climate change negotiations underway in Lima.

Preliminary estimates from the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) found global average land and sea surface temperatures for the first 10 months of 2014 had soared higher than ever recorded.

The findings – broadly in line with those of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) and other scientific agencies – indicate that by year-end 2014 will break all previous high temperature records.

The steady escalation of greenhouse gas emissions, caused by the burning of fossil fuels, have seen a succession of record-breaking years for temperature since the dawning of the 21st century and 2014 promises to be no exception, the WMO said.*






*“Fourteen of the 15 warmest years on record have all occurred in the 21st century,” said the WMO’s secretary-general Michel Jarraud. “What we saw in 2014 is consistent with what we expect from a changing climate."

“Record-breaking heat combined with torrential rainfall and floods destroyed livelihoods and ruined lives. What is particularly unusual and alarming this year are the high temperatures of vast areas of the ocean surface, including in the northern hemisphere,” he said.

The new evidence provided by the WMO report of the gathering risks of climate change undercut the optimism expressed by negotiators from industrialised countries at the opening of the Lima talks.

Christiana Figueres, the UN’s top climate official, said the findings drove home the urgency of reaching a deal. Negotiations have been grinding on for more than 20 years.

“Our climate is changing and every year the risks of extreme weather events and impacts on humanity rise,” she said.

Ed Davey, the UK climate secretary, said the UN climate talks were critical to stop temperatures rising to dangerous levels. “More record warm temperatures in the UK and across the world are yet more evidence that we need to act urgently to prevent dangerous climate change,” he said.

Officials from nearly 200 countries will spend the next two weeks in Lima working to agree on a plan to cut global greenhouse gas emissions fast enough and deeply enough to limit warming to 2C above pre-industrial times, the official objective of the UN talks.

But even that goal – which scientists say may not go far enough to prevent low-lying island states from drowning in rising seas – may be moving beyond reach.

“When confronted with numbers like these, the challenge to stablise global warming below dangerous levels can seem daunting indeed,” Michael Mann, the climate scientist, said. “The globe is warming, ice is melting, and our climate is changing, as a result. And the damage is being felt – in the forms of more destructive weather extremes, more devastating wildfires, and unprecedented threats to the survival of endangered animal species.”

He said the Lima climate talks – and a summit scheduled for Paris at the end of next year – were “perhaps our last real opportunity to stave off truly dangerous and irreversible world-wide changes in our climate.”

Bill McKibben, leader of the 350.org campaign group, saw the findings as a call to arms to climate activists. “If you thought 2014 was hot, wait ‘til you see 2015. This means we need to turn up the flame even higher under the fossil fuel companies that are frying our planet,” he said.

The WMO report found the global average air temperature over land and sea surface for January to October was about 0.57C above the average of 14C for the 1961-1990 reference period, and 0.09C above the average for the past 10 years (2004-2013).

The most striking evidence of warming was probably in the oceans, however. Most of the excess heat trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gas emissions ends up in the oceans.

The WMO said global sea surface temperatures were 0.45C higher than the average over the last 50 years.

If November and December continue on the same course, then 2014 will edge out 2010, 2005 and 1998 as the hottest years ever known – but only by a few hundredths of a degree. Different data sets also show slightly different rankings, the WMO said.

In any event, the trend line is clear. The world is getting warmer, especially the oceans. Those higher temperatures were already exacting a toll, in terms of heavy rainfall and flooding in some countries, and extreme drought in others, the WMO said.

The agency dismissed outright the notion posed by some climate deniers of a pause in the warming trend.

“There is no standstill in global warming,” Jarraud said.

The world’s big three emitters – the US, China, and the EU – have pledged new targets for cutting their use of fossil fuels, injecting optimism into the Lima talks.

But scientists say even those targets are not enough to limit warming to 2C, and other big carbon polluters such as India, Russia, and Australia have yet to come on board.

Meanwhile, there were early signs of tension between the US and EU over the legal structure of the agreement that is due to be adopted in Paris next year.

Campaign groups monitoring the talks called on negotiators to take the new WMO findings to heart.

“The fact that we’re tracking towards the hottest year on record should send chills through anyone who says they care about climate change – especially negotiators at the UN climate talks here in Lima,” said Samantha Smith, who heads WWF’s climate and energy initiative. “This is more scientific evidence of the real impact climate change is having on our world. The changes will be felt the most by the most vulnerable people, whose lives and livelihoods are already being affected.”*




_*An almost dried up reservoir in Pingdingshan, central China’s Henan province, where severe drought damaged vast areas of farmland. Photograph: STR/AFP/Getty Images
*_
*The WMO found western North America, Europe, eastern Eurasia, much of Africa, large areas of South America and southern and western Australia were especially warm. South Africa, Australia, and Argentina started the year with blistering heat waves.

However, the US and Canada ushered in 2014 with the chill Arctic winds of the polar vortex. Central Russia also recorded cooler than average conditions for the year.

Europe also experienced extreme weather, with the UK buffetted by storms. A separate temperature data set, the world’s longest continuous record, showed England was on track for the hottest year in over three centuries. Higher temperatures cause more evaporation and more rain, and 2014 began with England’s wettest winter in over 250 years, leading to widespread flooding. 

In Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia, more than two million people were caught up in severe flooding. Parts of Turkey saw five times the normal amount of rain, and France experienced its wettest summer since 1959.

South Asia also experienced heavy rains, with severe flooding in northern Bangladesh, northern Pakistan and India, affecting millions of people in August and September.

For other parts of the world, however, 2014 brought drought. Rainfall in parts of the Yellow River basin in China were less than half of the summer average. A large swathe of the western US continued under drought. New South Wales and southeast Queensland in Australia also went without rain.


****


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 5, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Even NOAA's data shows that were not so hot.. and that their warmest year ev'a is a lie...
> 
> Source



^ Before the AGWCult adjusts the data to conform with their models


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 5, 2014)

What the alarmist morons forget is that we are at the top of a sine wave.  The top of the 360 year warming cycle of the Sun. All of the years they tout as the "warmest" fall within the top of the wave.

I wonder if these same morons will spout the same crap when we reach the bottom of the 360 year cycle?  Will it be the coldest ever?

Lest I forget that we are at 18 years 2 months of Zero average...





Source


----------



## RKMBrown (Dec 5, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> What the alarmist morons forget is that we are at the top of a sine wave.  The top of the 360 year warming cycle of the Sun. All of the years they tout as the "warmest" fall within the top of the wave.
> 
> I wonder if these same morons will spout the same crap when we reach the bottom of the 360 year cycle?  Will it be the coldest ever?
> 
> ...


when it goes up they scream we are all gonna die when it goes down we are all gonna die.. when people fart.. we are all gonna die... What they really want is to be paid to make weather predictions. Hell they can't even be right 50% of the time.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 5, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > What the alarmist morons forget is that we are at the top of a sine wave.  The top of the 360 year warming cycle of the Sun. All of the years they tout as the "warmest" fall within the top of the wave.
> ...



Funnier still is the claims of 'the hottest year' when in the record you can clearly see that it was not..  The Alarmist drivel is so pitiful to watch..


----------



## RKMBrown (Dec 5, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


We're all gonna die just like the dinosaurs.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 5, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> New report from the World Meteorological Organization confirming what NOAA and NASA have been saying....*2014 will be the next 'hottest year on record'*.
> 
> *2014 set to be world's hottest year ever*
> The Guardian
> ...




Hottest?


And EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE say's *BULL SHIT!*

(got to love the regional small areas of warming while ignoring the major areas of cooling)  F'ing Moron


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 6, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> What the alarmist morons forget is that we are at the top of a sine wave.  The top of the 360 year warming cycle of the Sun. All of the years they tout as the "warmest" fall within the top of the wave.
> 
> I wonder if these same morons will spout the same crap when we reach the bottom of the 360 year cycle?  Will it be the coldest ever?
> 
> ...


Anti-science denier cult lunacy, as usual from the troll BoobyBobNutJob.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 6, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > New report from the World Meteorological Organization confirming what NOAA and NASA have been saying....*2014 will be the next 'hottest year on record'*.
> ...


Your pathetic excuse for a brain is filled with deranged *"**BULL SHIT"*, BoobyBob!

There are NO "_major areas of cooling_", moron, only "_regional small areas_" of cooling. Most of the planet is hot and getting hotter. As the scientific evidence clearly shows. Too bad you've got your head jammed so far up your ass.


----------



## RKMBrown (Dec 6, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


Without a doubt, you are a moron of Epic Proportions.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 6, 2014)

Every single person who calls someone a "DENIER!!!" is a complete fucking moron, there's a 100% Correlation.

If I can get this theory peer reviewed and published....


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 6, 2014)

And two more dimwitted deniers poop more meaningless drivel and delusional denier cult myths on the thread.

In the real world.....

*2014 Headed Toward Hottest Year On Record — Here’s Why That’s Remarkable*
BY JOE ROMM 
DECEMBER 3rd 2014





*2014 is currently on track to be hottest year on record, according to new reports from both the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the U.K.’s Met OfficeWednesday. Similarly, NOAA reported two weeks ago that 2014 is all but certain to be the hottest year on record. 

It is not remarkable that we keep setting new records for global temperatures — 2005 and then 2010 and likely 2014. Humans are, after all, emitting record amounts of heat-trapping carbon pollution into the air, and carbon dioxide levels in the air are at levels not seen for millions of years, when the planet was far warmer and sea levels tens of feet higher. The figure above from the Met Office makes clear that humans continue to warm the planet.

“The provisional information for 2014 means that fourteen of the fifteen warmest years on record have all occurred in the 21st century,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “There is no standstill in global warming.”

As Peter Stott, Head of Climate Attribution at the Met Office, explained: “Our research shows current global average temperatures are highly unlikely in a world without human influence on the climate.” While it has been on the cool side in parts of the United States, the Met Office reported that the United Kingdom is headed toward its hottest year on record. Stott noted that, “human influence has also made breaking the current UK temperature record about ten times more likely.”

What is remarkable, as the WMO explains, is that we’re headed toward record high global temps “in the absence of a full El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO).” We get an El Niño “when warmer than average sea-surface temperatures in the eastern tropical Pacific combine, in a self-reinforcing loop, with atmospheric pressure systems,” which affects weather patterns around the world. 

It’s usually the combination of the long-term manmade warming trend and the regional El Niño warming pattern that leads to new global temperature records. But not this year. 

Here’s a revealing chart from Skeptical Science courtesy of environmental scientist Dana Nuccitelli of NASA’s temperature data (with the projection for 2014 in black and white): 






This year we are poised to set the global temperature record in an ENSO-neutral year. And while eastern tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures have been warmer than normal in recent months, those temperatures were colder than normal in the beginning months of the year, so the net effect of ENSO on 2014 global temperatures has been minimal. 

As one caveat, different climate-tracking groups around the world use different data sets, so it is possible that at the end of the year, some will merely show 2014 tied for the hottest year on record depending on how warm December turns out to be. For NOAA, however, it’s all but certain 2014 will be the hottest year on record. Either way, it’s remarkable this is happening in an ENSO-neutral year.

Finally, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology reported Friday that their models indicate “at least a 70% chance that El Niño will be declared in the coming months.” If so, then 2015 will very likely top 2014 to become the hottest year on record.

The only way to stop setting new annual temperature records on an increasingly regular basis — until large parts of the planet are uninhabitable — is to sharply change the world’s carbon dioxide emissions path starting ASAP.*


----------



## RKMBrown (Dec 6, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> And two more dimwitted deniers poop more meaningless drivel and delusional denier cult myths on the thread.
> 
> In the real world.....
> 
> ...


moron


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 6, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> And two more dimwitted deniers poop more meaningless drivel and delusional denier cult myths on the thread.
> 
> In the real world.....
> 
> ...





RKMBrown said:


> moron


Of course you are! Everybody can see that.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 6, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> And two more dimwitted deniers poop more meaningless drivel and delusional denier cult myths on the thread.
> 
> In the real world.....
> 
> ...



Unadjusted empirical evidence says NO...  Paid for IPCC Alarmist Shills like Joe Romm, who's every prediction has failed, love to play with adjusted data to keep his pay check... Joe is Moron just like You!

The MET even got this winter wrong again...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 6, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > What the alarmist morons forget is that we are at the top of a sine wave.  The top of the 360 year warming cycle of the Sun. All of the years they tout as the "warmest" fall within the top of the wave.
> ...



As usual a moron who denies that the earth is cyclical and predictable spouts tons of crap.. Tell me moron, are the tides cyclical?, Are the seasons cyclical?, Is the Sun cyclical? 



> An extensively peer-reviewed study published last December in the _Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics_ indicates that observed climate changes since 1850 are linked to cyclical, predictable, naturally occurring events in Earth’s solar system with little or no help from us. The research was conducted by Nicola Scafetta, a scientist at Duke University and at the Active Cavity Radiometer Solar Irradiance Monitor Lab (ACRIM), which is associated with the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. It takes issue with methodologies applied by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) using “general circulation climate models” (GCMs) that, by ignoring these important influences, are found to fail to reproduce the observed decadal and multi-decadal climatic cycles.


You are a stupid f'in moron..

Source


----------



## mamooth (Dec 6, 2014)

If you look up Dunning-Kruger, you'll now see "denier" as a synonym. Almost all of them are simply too stupid to understand how stupid they are. However, mere stupidity is not enough to make a denier, as plenty of stupid people are productive moral members of society who didn't get sucked into the denier cult. To be a denier, streaks of paranoia, narcissism and sociopathy are also required.

Paranoia, for the conspiracy theories.

Narcissism, to claim you yourself know more than the world's best and brightest.

Sociopathy, to keep repeating crap you know has been debunked.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 6, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



My goodness. Cyclical, eh. Like the sunspot cycle, which presently has the sun putting out a bit less energy than it has in years past. Like the oscillations of La Nina and El Nino. La Nina's tend to be cooler, El Nino's warmer. Yet here we are in a neutral ENSO, neither El Nino nor La Nina with less energy from the sun, yet this looks to be the warmest year overall on record. Warmer even than in 1998, when we had a super El Nino. Some cycle there, dumdum.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 7, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> My goodness. Cyclical, eh. Like the sunspot cycle, which presently has the sun putting out a bit less energy than it has in years past. Like the oscillations of La Nina and El Nino. La Nina's tend to be cooler, El Nino's warmer. Yet here we are in a neutral ENSO, neither El Nino nor La Nina with less energy from the sun, yet this looks to be the warmest year overall on record. Warmer even than in 1998, when we had a super El Nino. Some cycle there, dumdum.



You really have no concept or clue do you...


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 7, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> My goodness. Cyclical, eh. Like the sunspot cycle, which presently has the sun putting out a bit less energy than it has in years past. Like the oscillations of La Nina and El Nino. La Nina's tend to be cooler, El Nino's warmer. Yet here we are in a neutral ENSO, neither El Nino nor La Nina with less energy from the sun, yet this looks to be the warmest year overall on record. Warmer even than in 1998, when we had a super El Nino. Some cycle there, dumdum.





Billy_Bob said:


> You really have no concept or clue do you...


Wrong again. We all have received an enormous number of "_clues_" that you are an insane and very ignorant little retard who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. As you just demonstrated once again.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 7, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Wrong again. We all have received an enormous number of "_clues_" that you are an insane and very ignorant little retard who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. As you just demonstrated once again.



You keep projecting your flaws and shortsightedness on others..


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 7, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong again. We all have received an enormous number of "_clues_" that you are an insane and very ignorant little retard who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. As you just demonstrated once again.
> ...


I suppose that's how it might look to someone as severely retarded as you are....soooooo delusional.


----------



## RKMBrown (Dec 7, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


Moron.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 7, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





RKMBrown said:


> Moron.


Yup, you sure are! 

But, hey, we all already know. You've made that fact completely obvious, many, many times already.


----------



## RKMBrown (Dec 7, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


We're all gonna die!!! ROFL


----------



## RKMBrown (Dec 7, 2014)




----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 7, 2014)

That applies more to you than to we who read the evidence the scientists present. And here on this board, people like you post silly pictures, and ignorant flap-yap without any links to any kind of science, what so ever. No one with any intelligence can respect you or consider anything you post as credible with the kind of posting you do.


----------



## RKMBrown (Dec 7, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> That applies more to you than to we who read the evidence the scientists present. And here on this board, people like you post silly pictures, and ignorant flap-yap without any links to any kind of science, what so ever. No one with any intelligence can respect you or consider anything you post as credible with the kind of posting you do.


ROFL...  What year are we all gonna die? Which one?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 7, 2014)

Dumb fuck, your continued brainless posts simply cement your reputation as someone totally irrelevant to anything.


----------



## RKMBrown (Dec 7, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Dumb fuck, your continued brainless posts simply cement your reputation as someone totally irrelevant to anything.


What year will the temperature get so high that humans will start dying?  Show me your hokey stick.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 7, 2014)

What year will your IQ surpass room temperature?


----------



## RKMBrown (Dec 8, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> What year will your IQ surpass room temperature?


The first time I took an IQ test, I was in the 4th grade.  It was 1972.  The principle called my parents in to tell them what I scored.  Turns out my IQ was significantly higher than pretty much everyone else.  

Two years later they initiated busing for everyone.  That's where I learned to hate people like you.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 8, 2014)

So you're proudly admitting you're just defending your political cult. You don't care about the science. Your political leaders said jump, so you jumped.

A typical denier, in other words.

Now that we've settled that, you can go back to pissing yourself over people dying from heat. Squealing hysterically is what you do best, so you should stick with that. At least you're smart enough to understand how badly you fail at the science.


----------



## RKMBrown (Dec 8, 2014)

mamooth said:


> So you're proudly admitting you're just defending your political cult. You don't care about the science. Your political leaders said jump, so you jumped.
> 
> A typical denier, in other words.
> 
> Now that we've settled that, you can go back to pissing yourself over people dying from heat. Squealing hysterically is what you do best, so you should stick with that. At least you're smart enough to understand how badly you fail at the science.


Don't talk to old rocks like that.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 8, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


 and you have the experiment?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 8, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



They don't need science, they have "Consensus"!

LOLz


----------



## jc456 (Dec 8, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


 It's all they have.  The earth is the true denier!!!


----------



## jc456 (Dec 8, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> And two more dimwitted deniers poop more meaningless drivel and delusional denier cult myths on the thread.
> 
> In the real world.....
> 
> ...


 so dude, with all of this data, why didn't the IPCC use any of it for their AR5 report?  Doh,  burned buddy!!!!!!

And, still no experiment.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 8, 2014)

jc, we've given you the experiment dozens of times. You're just a liar.

Along with Frank and Skook, any thread you enter is trashed by your appearance. Can't your throw your endless tantrums somewhere else? The grownups are trying to talk.


----------



## Ernie S. (Dec 8, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


THE HOCKEY SCHTICK New paper tells climate scientists how to fudge the numbers supporting overheated climate models


----------



## mamooth (Dec 8, 2014)

Hockey Schtick is a kook fantasy blog that says CO2 isn't really a greenhouse gas. They think the past century of physics is a socialist conspiracy. And they just make shit up. For example, in that article, they posted Goddard's model graph that was a complete fudge from top to bottom.

As you didn't seem to know the sordid history of deniers getting caught fudging everything, it's clear you need to start looking at some sources besides kook denier blogs.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 8, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc, you're spamming at crazy levels now, violating board rules. While everyone here breaks the rules a little, you're going way over the line. Cut it out.


 then provide the end of the debate and provide the experiment.  You and yours keep posting the same old crap and no experiment.  the argument is what it is, either you wish to debate it or not.  I have been waiting for months upon months for the experiment.  provide it and let's move forward.  It seems you are the one in violation to the board rules, you provide a basis of argument and are ignoring the request to continue said argument.  So, let's move forward and you or your pals provde the experiment or admit you don't have it!  it is a very simple request.


----------



## RKMBrown (Dec 8, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Hockey Schtick is a kook fantasy blog that says CO2 isn't really a greenhouse gas. They think the past century of physics is a socialist conspiracy. And they just make shit up. For example, in that article, they posted Goddard's model graph that was a complete fudge from top to bottom.
> 
> As you didn't seem to know the sordid history of deniers getting caught fudging everything, it's clear you need to start looking at some sources besides kook denier blogs.


Water vapor is a green house gas too... and there's a lot more of it.  You want to eliminate water too?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 8, 2014)

Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing.

Try to learn the basics before bothering the grownups.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 8, 2014)

jc456 said:


> then provide the end of the debate and provide the experiment.  You and yours keep posting the same old crap and no experiment.  the argument is what it is, either you wish to debate it or not.  I have been waiting for months upon months for the experiment.  provide it and let's move forward.  It seems you are the one in violation to the board rules, you provide a basis of argument and are ignoring the request to continue said argument.  So, let's move forward and you or your pals provde the experiment or admit you don't have it!  it is a very simple request.



But it's been given to you, several times. Why should we waste time giving it all to you again, given you'd clearly just lie about it again? The issue isn't the experiment, it's your pathological dishonesty.

You need to address that issue. If you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to admit to your dishonesty, apologize for it, and promise to do better. If you show you're willing to be intellectually honest, people will be willing to take time out to educate you.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 8, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...





RKMBrown said:


> We're all gonna die!!! ROFL


Quite true. Eventually everybody dies. Of course, most people's brains die at the same time as their body. You have the distinction of having a body that's still living but a brain that apparently died a long time ago.


----------



## RKMBrown (Dec 8, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing.
> 
> Try to learn the basics before bothering the grownups.


lol...

You might want to google co2 feedback before you embarrass yourself any further.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 8, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. Try to learn the basics before bothering the grownups.
> ...



CO2 is quite versatile. It is essential to plant life AND it is a greenhouse gas that heats the Earth by retaining more of the sun's energy within the atmosphere. I can tell that this info strains the limits of your very minimal comprehension abilities.

So, ReallyKrazyMoron, what is your point?


----------



## peach174 (Dec 8, 2014)




----------



## RKMBrown (Dec 8, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



And what % of green house gases is co2 vs water vapor?

And where's the uncontrolled temperature increase predicted by your consensus? What happened to it?  Why are the Polar Bears doing so well? Why haven't they died yet as predicted by your consensus?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 8, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > then provide the end of the debate and provide the experiment.  You and yours keep posting the same old crap and no experiment.  the argument is what it is, either you wish to debate it or not.  I have been waiting for months upon months for the experiment.  provide it and let's move forward.  It seems you are the one in violation to the board rules, you provide a basis of argument and are ignoring the request to continue said argument.  So, let's move forward and you or your pals provde the experiment or admit you don't have it!  it is a very simple request.
> ...


no you haven't givenme or any other skeptic on here an experiment that shows what 120PPMof CO2 does to climate/ temperature.  You lie.  Not surprising, but you lie with that statement.  And you can't provide it. I'm still waiting.  Nope i gave you years from 1940 to 1970 the temperatures did not go up, they went down, and CO2 was increasing at the time.  The fact is you have not provided any evidence to support your claim.  So intellectually speaking you're full of lies.

BTW, I'm not the only skeptic asking for that experiment which you still haven't provided, so now you're calling all of us liars.  How nice for you eh? Nope, you are the liar and we are the requesters, so dude/dudette, whatever you are, just provide the experiment or say you don't have it.  It's a simple request.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 8, 2014)

peach174 said:


>


Same old debunked denier cult propaganda meme. 

2014 - hottest year on record.
Followed by 2010, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2013, and then 1998.
14 of the 15 hottest years on record have occured in this century.
October was the 356th CONSCUTIVE month with temperatures higher than the twentieth century average.
The world's oceans are the warmest on record.
The most recent 12-month period, November 2013–October 2014, broke the record (set just last month) for the all-time warmest 12-month period in the 135-year period of record. 
November 2013 and May, June, August, September, and October 2014 were all the warmest on record for their respective months.


----------



## RKMBrown (Dec 8, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


moron


----------



## peach174 (Dec 8, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...




Climate Analysis Remote Sensing Systems
The troposphere has *not* warmed as fast as almost all climate models predict.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 8, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc, we've given you the experiment dozens of times. You're just a liar.
> 
> Along with Frank and Skook, any thread you enter is trashed by your appearance. Can't your throw your endless tantrums somewhere else? The grownups are trying to talk.


Lying again, Admiral. At what point can we call you pathological

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 8, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Same old debunked denier cult propaganda meme.
> 
> 2014 - hottest year on record.
> Followed by 2010, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2013, and then 1998.
> ...





RKMBrown said:


> moron



Why, yes you are! That's why your initials stand for 'ReallyKrazyMoron'.

I'm puzzled though why you keep opening your posts with that appropriate identifying tag "_moron_", and then you don't post any substance. But then your posts have never had any substance. Just empty meaningless drivel.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 8, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> And what % of green house gases is co2 vs water vapor?



Water vapor has a bigger effect. Now, why do you think that matters?

I'll help you out. Additional water vapor quickly rains out. Additional CO2 stays around.

Unless, of course, CO2 raises the temperature, which raises the amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold. That's why water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. More CO2 causes more water vapor. More water vapor does not cause more CO2.



> And where's the uncontrolled temperature increase predicted by your consensus? What happened to it?



Which of your kook leaders told you a "uncontrolled temperature increase " was predicted?

I'm being charitable there, by assuming you're just hopelessly brainwashed instead of dishonest. If that's not the case, let us know.



> Why are the Polar Bears doing so well? Why haven't they died yet as predicted by your consensus?



Same thing. Did your DearLeaders brainwash you into saying something that crazy, or are you being deliberately dishonest?


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 8, 2014)

Meanwhile, in the real world....

*World on course for warmest year*
BBC
4 December 2014
*This year is in the running to be the hottest both globally and for the UK since records began, early estimates show. In the first 10 months of 2014, global average air temrperature was about 0.57 Celsius above the long-term average. And the first eleven months in the UK have produced an average temperature 1.6C above the long-term.






The Secretary-General of the WMO, Michel Jarraud, said the preliminary data for 2014 was "consistent with what we expect from a changing climate. The provisional information for 2014 means that 14 of the 15 warmest years on record have all occurred in the 21st century. Record-breaking heat combined with torrential rainfall and floods destroyed livelihoods and ruined lives. What is particularly unusual and alarming this year are the high temperatures of vast areas of the ocean surface, including in the northern hemisphere." And he asserted that the new figures confirm the key trend in climate change: "There is no standstill in global warming."


****


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 9, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing.
> ...


*Really?





Climate

You have free access to this content
Positive feedback between global warming and atmospheric CO2concentration inferred from past climate change

Marten Scheffer1, 
Victor Brovkin2 and
Peter M. Cox3
Article first published online: 26 MAY 2006

DOI: 10.1029/2005GL025044



Abstract
[1] There is good evidence that higher global temperatures will promote a rise of greenhouse gas levels, implying a positive feedback which will increase the effect of anthropogenic emissions on global temperatures. However, the magnitude of this effect predicted by the available models remains highly uncertain, due to the accumulation of uncertainties in the processes thought to be involved. Here we present an alternative way of estimating the magnitude of the feedback effect based on reconstructed past changes. Linking this information with the mid-range Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimation of the greenhouse gas effect on temperature we suggest that the feedback of global temperature on atmospheric CO2 will promote warming by an extra 15–78% on a century-scale. This estimate may be conservative as we did not account for synergistic effects of likely temperature moderated increase in other greenhouse gases. Our semi-empirical approach independently supports process based simulations suggesting that feedback may cause a considerable boost in warming.

*


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 10, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> It looks like the denier cultists can't stand to face the truth about our rapidly warming planet.
> 
> 2014 is going to be the hottest year on record which will mean that 14 of the 15 hottest years on record have happened since the beginning of this century.


you appear to be correct my friend

deniers.....  what say you


----------



## RKMBrown (Dec 10, 2014)

mamooth said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > And what % of green house gases is co2 vs water vapor?
> ...


Moron thinks there's no cycle for CO2.  All that excess CO2 just sticks around like unused bacon grease in your fridge till there's no more room in the fridge and we all die!  

ROFL


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 10, 2014)

mamooth said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > And what % of green house gases is co2 vs water vapor?
> ...





RKMBrown said:


> Moron thinks there's no cycle for CO2.  All that excess CO2 just sticks around like unused bacon grease in your fridge till there's no more room in the fridge and we all die!


Oh, ReallyKrazyMoron, of course there is a _"cycle for CO2"_. Every year enormous amounts of CO2 are naturally released and absorbed, and this process had remained in a homeostatic balance for millions of years. However, since the time when mankind started burning fossil fuels, humans have added an un-natural component to the mix in the form of fossil carbon that had been locked away from the atmosphere for tens or hundreds of millions of years. There are no new carbon sinks to absorb this new, extra, un-natural CO2 (although the oceans have absorbed a lot of what mankind has released, but there is a fast approaching limit to how much CO2 they can absorb, plus this process is causing ocean acidification and severely endangering the ocean ecologies), so it has been accumulating in the atmosphere, raising CO2 levels by about 43% so far, from 280ppm to over 400ppm. The residence time of this extra CO2 in our atmosphere is from centuries to several thousand years. That's the time it would take natural processes to remove the extra CO2 and lower CO2 levels to their pre-industrial levels.

*Common Climate Misconceptions: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide*
Yale University - Climate Connections
Zeke Hausfather —  
December 16, 2010
*Understanding the carbon cycle is a key part of understanding the broader climate change issue. But a number of misconceptions floating around the blogosphere confuse basic concepts to argue that climate change is irrelevant because of the short residence time of carbon molecules in the atmosphere and the large overall carbon stock in the environment.

It turns out that while much of the “pulse” of extra CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere would be absorbed over the next century if emissions miraculously were to end today, about 20 percent of that CO2would remain for at least tens of thousands of years.*

*The complex global carbon cycle process involves carbon absorption and release by the atmosphere, oceans, soils, and organic matter, and also emissions from anthropogenic fossil fuel combustion and land-use changes. The figure below shows the best estimate of annual carbon fluxes from main sources and sinks.





View larger image - Figure from Oak Ridge National Laboratories (Units in gigatons of carbon).

At first glance, it may seem that the narrow black arrows representing anthropogenic sources are relatively insignificant, making up only a few percent of the total carbon released to the atmosphere in any given year. To understand why anthropogenic emissions are of concern, it is important to think of the carbon cycle as a balance of sorts; every year around 230 gigatons of carbon dioxide are released to the atmosphere, and around 230 gigatons of carbon dioxide are absorbed by the world’s oceans and biosphere. This balance forms an equilibrium of sorts, with the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide remaining largely unchanged over time. However, anthropogenic emissions throw this process out of kilter, adding a new source of emissions unmatched by additional sinks.

The carbon dioxide record over the past 10,000 years demonstrates this situation: the modern period exhibits a large spike in atmospheric carbon dioxide coincident to the time humans started burning fossil fuels.





Atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the past 10,000 years. From the IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM. 

Graphing emissions over the modern period against changes in atmospheric concentrations illustrates a clear relationship between emissions and increasing CO2 concentrations.





Via Wikipedia. 

It is important to note that not all anthropogenic emissions are accumulating in the atmosphere. Indeed, about half of annual CO2 emissions are absorbed by the ocean and vegetation, and this percentage of absorption, called the airborne fraction, is currently the subject of vigorous debate over whether or not it is changing over time. Scientists can model the absorption of anthropogenic carbon by year for different sinks.





Image from the Global Carbon Project. 

Determining the residence time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a rather complex problem. A common misconception arises from simply looking at the annual carbon flux and the atmospheric stock; after all, with 230 gigatons absorbed by the oceans and land every year, and a total atmospheric stock of 720 gigatons, one might expect the average molecule of CO2 to remain in the atmosphere for only three to four years.

Such an approach poorly frames the issue, however. It is not the residence time of an individual molecule that is relevant. What really matters is just how long it will take for the stock of anthropogenic carbon emissions that has accumulated in the atmosphere to be reabsorbed.

The simplest way to approximate the time it will take to reabsorb the anthropogenic flux is to calculate how long it would take for the atmosphere to revert to preindustrial levels of 280 parts per million if humans could cease emissions immediately. If the current net sink of around 4 gigatons of carbon per year remained constant over time, it would take about 50 years for the atmosphere to return to 280 ppm. However, there is no reason to think that these sinks would remain constant as emissions decrease. Indeed, it is more realistic to anticipate that the net sink would shrink in proportion to the decrease in emissions.

Scientists can approach this problem in a number of different ways. They can use models of carbon sink behavior based on their best knowledge of the physics of ocean carbon absorption and the biosphere. They can also use records of changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide during glacial periods in the distant past to estimate the time it takes for perturbations to settle out.

Using a combination of various methods, researchers have estimated that about 50 percent of the net anthropogenic pulse would be absorbed in the first 50 years, and about 70 percent in the first 100 years. Absorption by sinks slows dramatically after that, with an additional 10 percent or so being removed after 300 years and the remaining 20 percent lasting tens if not hundreds of thousands of years before being removed.

As University of Washington scientist David Archer explains, this “long tail” of absorption means that the mean lifetime of the pulse attributable to anthropogenic emissions is around 30,000 to 35,000 years.





Figure via Global Warming Art. 

So while a good portion of warming attributable to carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions would be removed from the atmosphere in a few decades if emissions were somehow ceased immediately, about 10 percent will continue warming Earth for eons to come. This 10 percent is significant, because even a small increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases can have a large impact on things like ice sheets and sea level if it persists over the millennia.*


----------



## RKMBrown (Dec 10, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




ROFL what a moron.. homeostatic balance...ROFL get this... for "millions" of years.


----------



## RKMBrown (Dec 10, 2014)

Hey MORON... can you read a chart?


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 10, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...





RKMBrown said:


> what a moron..


Well, of course you are. You demonstrate that fact with every post you make, ReallyKrazyMoron.









RKMBrown said:


> homeostatic balance...


Right....big words confuse you....LOL.








RKMBrown said:


> "get this... for "millions" of years.


For two and a half million years CO2 levels have not exceeded 300ppm.

For two and a half million years CO2 levels have only varied between 270ppm to 300ppm during the interglacial periods and between 170ppm and 190ppm during the periods of heavy glaciation.

For the last ten thousand years CO2 levels levels had remained at about 270-280ppm, until mankind started burning fossil fuels. Natural yearly sources of CO2 emissions were naturally balanced with the natural CO2 sinks and CO2 levels remained naturally balanced. That's called a 'homeostatic balance'. It doesn't mean that nothing changes; it means that the changes in one direction are balanced by the changes in the other direction so things remain in a dynamic balance with general levels of CO2 remaining unchanged. Until mankind came along and upset the balances.


----------



## RKMBrown (Dec 10, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


Translation: you can't read a chart.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Dec 10, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Hilarious. The poor desperate deniers have devolved into all-conspiracy all-the-time nutters. They literally have no other arguments beyond TheGreatSocialistConspiracy.
> 
> That's why the whole planet is laughing at them. Get used to your constant humiliation, deniers. After all, you've worked hard to earn all the ridicule you're getting.



 



> They literally have no other arguments


And global warming nut-jobs like yourself literally have NOTHING that is based on real science to support the bullshit that you claim.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 10, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


Translation: you are too stupid to understand how irrelevant your "_chart_" is. 4 or 5 hundred million years ago solar output was around 4% lower than current levels. CO2 levels and climate match up quite well under those conditions.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 10, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Hilarious. The poor desperate deniers have devolved into all-conspiracy all-the-time nutters. They literally have no other arguments beyond TheGreatSocialistConspiracy.
> ...



And another extremely ignorant crackpot denier cult retard pops up with more delusional idiocy and bullshit.

*The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, adopted by the society in 2003, revised in 2007,[54] and revised and expanded in 2013,[55] affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

“Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated."

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2012 concluded:

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability.

Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.[66]
(source)*


----------



## Wyld Kard (Dec 10, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...





> And another extremely ignorant crackpot denier cult retard pops up with more delusional idiocy and bullshit.



So says the dumbfuck who drank the Kool-Aid and believed the lies to be true.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Dec 10, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> It looks like the denier cultists can't stand to face the truth about our rapidly warming planet.
> 
> 2014 is going to be the hottest year on record which will mean that 14 of the 15 hottest years on record have happened since the beginning of this century.





> It looks like the denier cultists can't stand to face the truth about our rapidly warming planet.


What a load of bullshit!  

The planet has been cooling!

Global warming No the planet is getting cooler World News Daily Express

But I know, dumbfucks like yourself will absolutely refuse to acknowledge or even to consider anything else, if it doesn't support the lies and misinformation that they so faithfully believe in and accept.


----------



## RKMBrown (Dec 10, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


ROFL... first the fucking retard says look at the history of co2 levels... then when you show him the history of co2 levels the fucking retard says the history of co2 levels is irrelevant... it's about solar output going up...

OMFG the fucking retard thinks the sun is heating up because cows are farting on earth... you just can't make up how retarded these libs are.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 10, 2014)

RMK you are the posterboy for willfull ignorance. Your understands of what those posts said is something one might expect of a second grader. A failing one.


----------



## RKMBrown (Dec 10, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> RMK you are the posterboy for willfull ignorance. Your understands of what those posts said is something one might expect of a second grader. A failing one.


Can someone translate this drunken gibberish to English?


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 10, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > It looks like the denier cultists can't stand to face the truth about our rapidly warming planet.
> ...


Thanks for so clearly identifying what you're trying to peddle, retard







Wildcard said:


> The planet has been cooling!
> Global warming No the planet is getting cooler World News Daily Express


YOU ARE SOOOOOO RETARDED!!!

I cite the Anerican Geophysical Union and the the American Meteorological Society, two preeminent scientific organizations, whose position statements affirm the reality and dangers of anthropogenic global warming and its consequent climate changes, and you respond with some dumbshit article from a rightwingnut British tabloid rag with zero credibility.








Wildcard said:


> So says the dumbfuck who drank the Kool-Aid and believed the lies to be true.





Wildcard said:


> But I know, idiots like yourself will absolutely refuse to acknowledge or even to consider anything else, if it doesn't support the lies and misinformation that they so faithfully believe in and accept.


You denier cult retards are always talking to yourselves like this. Why are you all such ignorant clueless imbeciles?


----------



## Wyld Kard (Dec 10, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





> Thanks for so clearly identifying what you're trying to peddle, retard


Do YOU have a problem with the truth, Rolling Blunder?  Apparently YOU do.

And what are YOU and the other nut-jobs peddling, hoping to convince others that global warming / climate change is real?  Oh, that right, BULLSHIT, upon more BULLSHIT!  

YOU ARE SOOOOOO FUCKING IGNORANT!  Must be the Kool-Aid!



> I cite the Anerican Geophysical Union and the the American Meteorological Society, two preeminent scientific organizations,



Not only do YOU cite bullshit as usual, but apparently YOU can't spell either.  The word is American NOT Anerican you dumbfuck!



> Why are you all such ignorant clueless imbeciles?


That's a question YOU should ask yourself and other ignorant shit-for-brains that bought into the bullshit lies and misinformation of global warming / climate change without question.  

Try again!


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 10, 2014)

How temperatures across the globe ranked from January through October 2014.
*Click image to enlarge.* Credit: NOAA

Warm Ocean Waters Boosting Typhoons Record Heat Climate Central

Some have cited this widespread ocean warmth as the beginning of the end of the pause, or hiatus, in the rate of planetary warming, with rates of warming demonstrably slower over the past few decades than in the previous ones. The ocean stores much of the heat absorbed by the excess greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, so it could be beginning of that heat being unleashed back into the atmosphere.

For the year through October, the average ocean temperature for the planet was a record high,according to NOAA data. That was a significant factor in the same period being the warmest first 10 months on record, 1.22°F higher than the 20th century average of 57.4°F. If November and December continue on pace, 2014 could best 2010 as the warmest year on record and would mean that 14 of the 15 warmest years all occurred in the 21st century

*Looks like 2015 is shaping up to be a very warm year, also. Be interesting to have two record years back to back.*


----------



## SSDD (Dec 11, 2014)

Every day the hoax becomes more obvious...reality bitch slaps the claims of you wackos at every turn.

The inflated claims of 2014 being the warmest year are based largely on sea surface temperatures, and land masses with very little instrumental coverage.  Of particular note is the bit of water just east of Greenland.  According to the climate hoaxers the water there is 6C above normal.  Let me repeat that....6C above normal.






Now look at this satellite image of arctic sea ice.  Look at the sea ice in the same area as the data tamperers claim that sea surface temps are 6C above normal...  Sea ice above the mean.  I guess now warmer water makes more ice.  Lets hope that it doesn't get any warmer or shipping may have to come to a halt.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 11, 2014)

http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/contour/global_small.c.gif

Yes, it is December and the Arctic Ocean is getting cold. But less cold than it has in the past. The result being less ice refreezes, and more melts in the summer, continueing the trend toward an ice free summer in the Arctic.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 11, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/contour/global_small.c.gif
> 
> Yes, it is December and the Arctic Ocean is getting cold. But less cold than it has in the past. The result being less ice refreezes, and more melts in the summer, continueing the trend toward an ice free summer in the Arctic.



Guess you didn't notice the red line...that tells you that there is more ice than normal.....idiot.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 11, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/contour/global_small.c.gif
> ...


More clueless idiocy from the troll SSoooDDuuumb.

*Sea ice extent in November averaged 630,000 square kilometers (243,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average. Arctic sea ice extent for November was the 9th lowest in the satellite record (35 years). Through 2014, the linear rate of decline for November extent over the satellite record is 4.7% per decade.* (source - *NSIDC*)


----------



## mamooth (Dec 11, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Every day the hoax becomes more obvious...reality bitch slaps the claims of you wackos at every turn.



You're using the unisys maps, which are known to have all kinds of troubles.

Why not go to the NOAA maps?

Oh, that's right. you're a denier. Unaltered data makes you break out in hives.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 11, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> How temperatures across the globe ranked from January through October 2014.
> *Click image to enlarge.* Credit: NOAA
> 
> Warm Ocean Waters Boosting Typhoons Record Heat Climate Central
> ...




....so, where's the lab work that shows how CO2 does any of this?


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 11, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> How temperatures across the globe ranked from January through October 2014.
> *Click image to enlarge.* Credit: NOAA
> 
> Warm Ocean Waters Boosting Typhoons Record Heat Climate Central
> ...





CrusaderFrank said:


> ....so, where's the lab work that shows how CO2 does any of this?


Here's some of it. A fraction.

*CO2 absorption of infrared (IR), theory:*
**Kouzov, A. P., & Chrysos, M. (2009). Collision-induced absorption by CO 2 in the far infrared: Analysis of leading-order moments and interpretation of the experiment. Physical Review A, 80(4), 042703.*

**Chrysos, M., Kouzov, A. P., Egorova, N. I., & Rachet, F. (2008 ). Exact Low-Order Classical Moments in Collision-Induced Bands by Linear Rotors: CO 2-CO 2. Physical review letters, 100(13), 133007.*

**Buldyreva, J., & Chrysos, M. (2001). Semiclassical modeling of infrared pressure-broadened linewidths: A comparative analysis in CO2–Ar at various temperatures. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 115(16), 7436-7441.*

**Kratz, D. P., Gao, B. C., & Kiehl, J. T. (1991). A study of the radiative effects of the 9.4‐and 10.4‐micron bands of carbon dioxide. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012), 96(D5), 9021-9026.*

**Stull, V. R., Wyatt, P. J., & Plass, G. N. (1964). The infrared transmittance of carbon dioxide. Applied Optics, 3(2), 243-254.*

*CO2 absorption of IR, laboratory measurements:*
**R.A. Toth, et al., Spectroscopic database of CO2 line parameters: 4300–7000 cm−1, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer,  109:6, April 2008, 906-921.*

**Predoi-Cross, A., Unni, A. V., Liu, W., Schofield, I., Holladay, C., McKellar, A. R. W., & Hurtmans, D. (2007). Line shape parameters measurement and computations for self-broadened carbon dioxide transitions in the 30012← 00001 and 30013← 00001 bands, line mixing, and speed dependence. Journal of molecular spectroscopy, 245(1), 34-51.*

**Miller, C. E., & Brown, L. R. (2004). Near infrared spectroscopy of carbon dioxide I.[sup] 16[/sup] O[sup] 12[/sup] C[sup] 16[/sup] O line positions. Journal of molecular spectroscopy, 228(2), 329-354.*

**Niro, F., Boulet, C., & Hartmann, J. M. (2004). Spectra calculations in central and wing regions of CO[sub] 2[/sub] IR bands between 10 and 20μm. I: model and laboratory measurements. Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 88(4), 483-498.*

**Benec'h, S., Rachet, F., Chrysos, M., Buldyreva, J., & Bonamy, L. (2002). On far‐wing Raman profiles by CO2. Journal of Raman Spectroscopy, 33(11‐12), 934-940.*

*Earth's upward emission of IR:*
**Murphy, D. M., Solomon, S., Portmann, R. W., Rosenlof, K. H., Forster, P. M., & Wong, T. (2009). An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012), 114(D17).*

**Trenberth, K. E., Fasullo, J. T., & Kiehl, J. (2009). Earth's global energy budget. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 90(3).*

**Wong, T., Wielicki, B. A., Lee III, R. B., Smith, G. L., Bush, K. A., & Willis, J. K. (2006). Reexamination of the observed decadal variability of the earth radiation budget using altitude-corrected ERBE/ERBS nonscanner WFOV data. Journal of Climate, 19(16).*

**Harries, J. E. (2000). Physics of the Earth's radiative energy balance. Contemporary Physics, 41(5), 309-322.*
**Kyle, H. L., Arking, A., Hickey, J. R., Ardanuy, P. E., Jacobowitz, H., Stowe, L. L., ... & Smith, G. L. (1993). The Nimbus Earth radiation budget (ERB) experiment: 1975 to 1992. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 74(5), 815-830.*

**Barkstrom, B. R. (1984). The earth radiation budget experiment (ERBE). Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 65(11), 1170-1185.*

*Changes in Earth's upward IR emission as a result of increased CO2 in the atmosphere:*
**Gastineau, G., Soden, B. J., Jackson, D. L., & O'Dell, C. W. (2014). Satellite-Based Reconstruction of the Tropical Oceanic Clear-Sky Outgoing Longwave Radiation and Comparison with Climate Models. Journal of Climate, 27(2).*

**Chapman, D., Nguyen, P., & Halem, M. (2013, May). A decade of measured greenhouse forcings from AIRS. In SPIE Defense, Security, and Sensing (pp. 874313-874313). International Society for Optics and Photonics.*

**Chen, C., Harries, J., Brindley, H., & Ringer, M. (2007). Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth's infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006. Retrieved October, 13, 2009.*

**Griggs, J. A., & Harries, J. E. (2007). Comparison of Spectrally Resolved Outgoing Longwave Radiation over the Tropical Pacific between 1970 and 2003 Using IRIS, IMG, and AIRS. Journal of climate, 20(15).*

**Griggs, J. A., & Harries, J. E. (2004, November). Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present. In Optical Science and Technology, the SPIE 49th Annual Meeting (pp. 164-174). International Society for Optics and Photonics.*

*Changes in downwelling infrared from the atmosphere as a result of increased CO2:*
**Wang, K., & Liang, S. (2009). Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all‐sky conditions from 1973 to 2008. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012), 114(D19).*

**Wild, M., Grieser, J., & Schär, C. (2008 ). Combined surface solar brightening and increasing greenhouse effect support recent intensification of the global land‐based hydrological cycle. Geophysical Research Letters, 35(17).*

**Prata, F. (2008 ). The climatological record of clear‐sky longwave radiation at the Earth's surface: evidence for water vapour feedback?. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 29(17-18 ), 5247-5263.*

**Allan, R. P. (2006). Variability in clear‐sky longwave radiative cooling of the atmosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012), 111(D22).*

**Philipona, R., Dürr, B., Marty, C., Ohmura, A., & Wild, M. (2004). Radiative forcing‐measured at Earth's surface‐corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect. Geophysical Research Letters, 31(3).*

*Formal determination of CO2-temperature causality:*
** Attanasio, A., Pasini, A., & Triacca, U. (2013). Granger Causality Analyses for Climatic Attribution. Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, 3, 515.*

** Attanasio, A. (2012). Testing for linear Granger causality from natural/anthropogenic forcings to global temperature anomalies. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 110(1-2), 281-289.*

** Attanasio, A., Pasini, A., & Triacca, U. (2012). A contribution to attribution of recent global warming by out‐of‐sample Granger causality analysis. Atmospheric Science Letters, 13(1), 67-72.*

** Kodra, E., Chatterjee, S., & Ganguly, A. R. (2011). Exploring Granger causality between global average observed time series of carbon dioxide and temperature. Theoretical and applied climatology, 104(3-4), 325-335.*

** Verdes, P. F. (2005). Assessing causality from multivariate time series. PHYSICAL REVIEW-SERIES E-, 72(2), 026222.*


----------



## RKMBrown (Dec 11, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > How temperatures across the globe ranked from January through October 2014.
> ...


I doesn't.  They already agreed any measured warming is directly attributable to the sun.  CO2 is just something they can tax.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 11, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


ReallyKrazyMoron is a denier cult troll, trying desperately (and vainly) to push stupid lies and long since debunked misinformation. 

Scientists are quite clear that the current abrupt warming trend is attributable to the 43% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. They are also quite certain that "_any measured warming_" is definitely not "_attributable to the sun_", because the sun has not increased in brightness or intensity. This "_it's the sun_" nonsense just another crackpot denier cult myth, and just as bogus as all of the rest of their fallacious propaganda and bullshit.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 12, 2014)

*Is 2014 the Hottest or Coldest Year on Record?*
*NBCNews*
*December 10th 2014*
*Globally, 2014 is the hottest year ever recorded, but in the United States it's the coldest year since 1997.


****


----------



## Wyld Kard (Dec 12, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 


> Your idiotic drivel got debunked by the facts *again*


Debunked???  
by the facts???  

What facts?
Oh, you mean the bullshit lies and misinformation that is based on fraudulent science that YOU continually post and believe to be true.  
Those so-called "facts"?

Damn your a dumbfuck!


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 12, 2014)

elektra said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...





RollingThunder said:


> Your idiotic drivel got debunked by the facts *again*, you moronic nutjob, just like it *always* has every time you post your really insane claims ("_no drought in California_", for example), and now you're just spewing meaningless gibberish that has no bearing on the scientific facts about rising temperatures. I reported on the scientific statements about how hot 2014 has been. I happen to trust the reports of the world scientific community and groups like NOAA, NASA, NSIDC, PIOMAS and others around the world. Since you're obviously very insane, you are almost certainly a conspiracy theory wacko, so you probably don't trust the scientists at all. Not my problem! If you want an education in how the scientists reach their conclusions about AGW and the data and evidence they use, look it up yourself. Again, not my problem! I'm not the one who's too bonkers to believe the collective judgement of the world's experts.





Wildcard said:


> > Your idiotic drivel got debunked by the facts *again*
> 
> 
> Debunked???  by the facts???  What facts?


You really have some *serious* comprehension problems, WildassCretin. You grt stumped by _small_ words!

So, yes, you poor retard, Elektra's drivel (and of course, all of your exceptionally idiotic drivel) got thoroughly debunked (even if you're too stupid to grasp that) by the *facts* about AGW/CC; facts that have been uncovered by the diligent work of tens of thousands of highly educated scientists all around the world over the last six decades or so. Facts that are almost unanimously affirmed by the world scientific community. Facts that you are either paid to deny, or that you are too retarded to comprehend and have been brainwashed into moronically denying. Like you do right here.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 12, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


My, my, another little corksmoking idiot. All flap-yap and little cartoons, and not a single link to back any of his lies and stupidities. 

Come on, show us one Scientfic Society that does not state AGW is real. How about one National Academy of Science? One major University? You cannot because all have policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. 

You present yourself as a willfully ignorant individual, and absolutely determined to stay that way.


----------



## westwall (Dec 12, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...








Who cares about your wanton, illogical, desperate appeal to authority.  They are logic fails and don't mean diddly when those very institutions generate their funding based on perpetuating the fraud.

You asshats complain about the 30 million the Exxon spent on sceptic research and completely ignore the 30 BILLION that has gone into those institutions coffers over the last 5 years.

So, olfraud....which is bigger?  30 million, or 30 billion?  Cue the Jeopardy music...


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 13, 2014)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...



The walleyedretard's usual mix of ignorance, lies, fraudulent propaganda memes, and total bullshit. Meaningless, worthless twaddle.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 13, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Again, Old Fraud and Blunder Boy are living up to their names..


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 13, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...





Billy_Bob said:


> Again, Old Fraud and Blunder Boy are living up to their names..


That's a hoot, coming from ol' BoobyBobNutJob.....

But the facts are that the Earth just experienced TWO twelve month 'years' in a row that were the hottest 'years' on record - October 2013 to September 2014 and November 2013 to October 2014 - and now it's pretty certain that the 2014 calender year is also going to be the hottest calender year on record as well. As the information from NOAA that I just cited affirms.

And you post this kind of meaningless drivel, like you did here, as a response. You are SUCH an ignorant retarded troll.


----------



## RKMBrown (Dec 13, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Moron.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 13, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...





RKMBrown said:


> Moron.


Well of course you are. We all know that, ReallyKrazyMoron.

Why are your posts so vacuous and empty of content? Oh, right, you're retarded.

Perhaps someone should keep a tally of all of your retarded one word posts. What is it now, 40 or 50 percent of your total posts?


----------



## RKMBrown (Dec 13, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Mentally handicapped POS.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 13, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> ReallyKrazyMoron is a denier cult troll, trying desperately (and vainly) to push stupid lies and long since debunked misinformation.
> 
> Scientists are quite clear that the current abrupt warming trend is attributable to the 43% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. They are also quite certain that "_any measured warming_" is definitely not "_attributable to the sun_", because the sun has not increased in brightness or intensity. This "_it's the sun_" nonsense just another crackpot denier cult myth, and just as bogus as all of the rest of their fallacious propaganda and bullshit.





RKMBrown said:


> Moron.





RollingThunder said:


> Well of course you are. We all know that, ReallyKrazyMoron.
> 
> Why are your posts so vacuous and empty of content? Oh, right, you're retarded.
> 
> Perhaps someone should keep a tally of all of your retarded one word posts. What is it now, 40 or 50 percent of your total posts?





RKMBrown said:


> Mentally handicapped POS.



Repeat last post with one small change...

*"Why are your posts so vacuous and empty of content? Oh, right, you're retarded.

Perhaps someone should keep a tally of all of your retarded one or two or three word posts. What is it now, 70 or 80 percent of your total posts?"*


----------



## Wyld Kard (Dec 13, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 


My, my another little ignorant dumbass.  Still to date YOU cannot back-up the bullshit that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.  Instead of providing real evidence based on real science, time and time again Goldierocks YOU have provided BULLSHIT upon more BULLSHIT upon even more BULLSHIT.    

YOU present yourself as a moron who was gullible enough to believe in and accept the lies and misinformation of global warming / climate change and trying to convince others of your brainwashed beliefs.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Dec 13, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 
 

Hey RollingBlunder, everything in that post from you is equal to..........





Your a dumbfuck, and you prove that each and every time that you post.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 13, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





Wildcard said:


> My, my another little ignorant dumbass.  Still to date YOU cannot back-up the bullshit that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.  Instead of providing real evidence based on real science, time and time again Goldierocks YOU have provided BULLSHIT upon more BULLSHIT upon even more BULLSHIT.
> 
> YOU present yourself as a moron who was gullible enough to believe in and accept the lies and misinformation of global warming / climate change and trying to convince others of your brainwashed beliefs.



LOLOLOLOLOL.......so says the denier cult retard 'WildassCretin' who NEVER EVER even tries to support his absurd claims and delusions with any actual evidence, as everyone has noticed. Just hot air and bullshit, that's all this poor imbecile can manage. He wouldn't know "_real science_" if it bit him on the ass.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Dec 13, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...


 
 

Another stupid post from the dumbfuck, RollingBlunder.

YAWN..................................


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 14, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> LOLOLOLOLOL.......so says the denier cult retard 'WildassCretin' who NEVER EVER even tries to support his absurd claims and delusions with any actual evidence, as everyone has noticed. Just hot air and bullshit, that's all this poor imbecile can manage. He wouldn't know "_real science_" if it bit him on the ass.





Wildcard said:


> Another stupid post from the dumbfuck, RollingBlunder. YAWN.



And another completely vacuous post from the WingnutCretin. Retarded victims of the Dunning-Kruger Effect always imagine that the other person is the stupid one when the other person points out the very clear evidence of how extremely stupid he is really, really being. Evidence that he has provided in abundance.

He probably expects to be congratulated for bringing the length of his moronically empty simple-minded posts up from only one or two or three _words_ all the way up to (gasp) _eight words_. LOLOL. This poor nutbagger has nothing but hot air and bullshit to offer, and he can't comprehend why nobody here buys the lame twaddle he's pushing....after all, all of his (equally moronic) friends believe him....LOL....


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 14, 2014)

Wouldn't be nearly so hot if those damn Democrats would cool down over the ass-kicking they took in the elections.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 14, 2014)

Spare_change said:


> Wouldn't be nearly so hot if those damn Democrats would cool down over the ass-kicking they took in the elections.


More off-topic drivel from the nutbagger contingent.


----------



## Judicial review (Dec 14, 2014)

earlier today I crop dusted isle 5 at wall mart and was hoping the environmentalists in this threads (aka dumb shits) can tell me the impact that will have on the people in walmart and animals outside?  

Will it hurt them?  
Will it hurt the environment once it finds it's way outside?  
Does it kill all the animals like in Once Upon a forest?  
Did you feel bad for those animals in that movie and is that why you care so much about the environment?  
Is that why animals walk away after you let one go?
You know crows hover around nuclear power plants all the time for their prey to just die over and they get food to eat, so why complain?


----------



## Tom Sweetnam (Dec 14, 2014)

I love warmie words like "denier" and "heretic". They have such a long-established provenance in the halls of empirical science. When I was a product manager in Silicon Valley, anyone who used such medieval dismissives in a production meeting, would have been stared at in shock, and handed his severance package the next morning.

The saddest part in all this, is that 99% of these useful idiots parroting the anti-petroleum catechism, have no idea that's what they're actually doing, and the further irony is that people in Silicon Valley on the road to making billions in wealth back then and in subsequent years, are the very people pulling all the useful idiot strings.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 14, 2014)

giss for nov came in at .65c or .67 for the Dec-Nov period...Which puts us slightly below 2010. 2010 had a dec around .45c which we should beat and be able to regain number one.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 14, 2014)

Judicial review said:


> earlier today I crop dusted isle 5 at wall mart and was hoping the environmentalists in this threads (aka dumb shits) can tell me the impact that will have on the people in walmart and animals outside?
> 
> Will it hurt them?
> Will it hurt the environment once it finds it's way outside?
> ...


Were you born stupid or did you have to take bad drugs to get this way?


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 14, 2014)

Tom Sweetnam said:


> I love warmie words like "denier" and "heretic". They have such a long-established provenance in the halls of empirical science. When I was a product manager in Silicon Valley, anyone who used such medieval dismissives in a production meeting, would have been stared at in shock, and handed his severance package the next morning.
> 
> The saddest part in all this, is that 99% of these useful idiots parroting the anti-petroleum catechism, have no idea that's what they're actually doing, and the further irony is that people in Silicon Valley on the road to making billions in wealth back then and in subsequent years, are the very people pulling all the useful idiot strings.


I would never call you a "_heretic_", although you are a member of an anti-science cult of reality denial.....but "_denier_ is an entirely appropriate label for anyone who idiotically denies the conclusions of the climate scientists and the massive amounts of evidence and data those conclusions are based on. The fact that you deserve that label has nothing whatsoever to do with the science supporting the conclusions of the climate scientists about AGW. ... Silly moron.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 14, 2014)

Tom Sweetnam said:


> I love warmie words like "denier" and "heretic". They have such a long-established provenance in the halls of empirical science. When I was a product manager in Silicon Valley, anyone who used such medieval dismissives in a production meeting, would have been stared at in shock, and handed his severance package the next morning.
> 
> The saddest part in all this, is that 99% of these useful idiots parroting the anti-petroleum catechism, have no idea that's what they're actually doing, and the further irony is that people in Silicon Valley on the road to making billions in wealth back then and in subsequent years, are the very people pulling all the useful idiot strings.



It's Cult behavior. AGW crowd is a total Cult


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 14, 2014)

Matthew said:


> giss for nov came in at .65c or .67 for the Dec-Nov period...Which puts us slightly below 2010. 2010 had a dec around .45c which we should beat and be able to regain number one.



You like the adjusted up numbers too..  While the unadjusted numbers show -0.32 deg C, far below your magical numbers of fairy dust change...

Justify your upward adjustment of 0.99 deg C.  One full degree C.. Holy shit, these are guys who are total frauds... how bold can you get? No one is calling these bastards on their fairy dust adjustments..


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 14, 2014)

Matthew said:


> giss for nov came in at .65c or .67 for the Dec-Nov period...Which puts us slightly below 2010. 2010 had a dec around .45c which we should beat and be able to regain number one.





Billy_Bob said:


> You like the adjusted up numbers too..  While the unadjusted numbers show -0.32 deg C, far below your magical numbers of fairy dust change...
> 
> Justify your upward adjustment of 0.99 deg C.  One full degree C.. Holy shit, these are guys who are total frauds... how bold can you get? No one is calling these bastards on their fairy dust adjustments..


Delusional nonsense with, of course, no attempt at providing any evidence to support his anti-science bullshit. Just crackpot conspiracy theories involving all of the scientists at NASA this time.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 14, 2014)

Tom Sweetnam said:


> I love warmie words like "denier" and "heretic". They have such a long-established provenance in the halls of empirical science. When I was a product manager in Silicon Valley, anyone who used such medieval dismissives in a production meeting, would have been stared at in shock, and handed his severance package the next morning.



You mean your company was run by anti-science cult crybabies? I kind of doubt that.

It's more likely you're just making crap up. If some dimbulb at your company had starting screaming hysterically about how the round earth theory was a socialist plot, it would have been the dimbulb getting told to change his ways. Same situation with deniers.



> The saddest part in all this, is that 99% of these useful idiots parroting the anti-petroleum catechism, have no idea that's what they're actually doing, and the further irony is that people in Silicon Valley on the road to making billions in wealth back then and in subsequent years, are the very people pulling all the useful idiot strings.



Conspiracy nutters like you deservedly get laughed at by all rational people. And are shown the door if they don't keep their stupidity to themselves. Was that what happened to you?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 14, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > giss for nov came in at .65c or .67 for the Dec-Nov period...Which puts us slightly below 2010. 2010 had a dec around .45c which we should beat and be able to regain number one.
> ...




Justify the stupidity you fuck wit moron..  YOU cite these fairytale numbers and bring NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THEIR ADJUSTMENT! Come on Blunder Boy justify the shit your spouting..

I'm willing to bet that if they were adjusting it downwards you be screaming like a little school girl.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah (Dec 14, 2014)

S.J. said:


> Give it up, there is no global warming.



We're in for a cold winter, I believe.  The old timers say if the cattle are laying down in the field before winter hits it is going to be a cold winter.  Mine were laying down today.  I believe it is going to be a very cold winter this year.


----------



## S.J. (Dec 14, 2014)

Jeremiah said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Give it up, there is no global warming.
> ...


And the left will claim the cold winter is caused by global warming.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 14, 2014)

S.J. said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



As they adjust up the temperature record and homogenize the old records to increase the rise.. its all deception..


----------



## Book of Jeremiah (Dec 14, 2014)

S.J. said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



If the global temperatures are warming how can the winters get colder?  Wouldn't they get warmer?  Wasn't that the big story about the Polar Bears running out of icebergs or something?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 14, 2014)

December looks to be warmer than Nov so far. 2010 had .44c for Dec based on Giss data...This Dec should be around .66-.67c...This will allow us to beat 2010 with a .68c for Jan-Dec yearly....Will be very close either way. 


http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 14, 2014)

Jeremiah said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Give it up, there is no global warming.
> ...


Remember if it's hot it's global warming and if it's cold it's also global warming.
I on the other hand call it weather.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah (Dec 14, 2014)

If the cows are laying down in the field it is going to be a cold winter.  That is the prediction from the Old Timers.  I am going with their prediction. Looks to be a cold winter I believe.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 14, 2014)

Jeremiah said:


> If the cows are laying down in the field it is going to be a cold winter.  That is the prediction from the Old Timers.  I am going with their prediction. Looks to be a cold winter I believe.



The data includes the colder than avg America.
Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 14, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> > If the cows are laying down in the field it is going to be a cold winter.  That is the prediction from the Old Timers.  I am going with their prediction. Looks to be a cold winter I believe.
> ...



The UNADJUSTED data set shows that we are -0.52 deg C.  SO please tell us what justification are you using for adding 1 deg C to the records you tout as truth?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 14, 2014)

There's no sign of a cold winter coming in the USA. After a cold November, December average temp in the USA is so far a little warmer than average. That's how it's been for the first two weeks, and that's the forecast for the next week. Cooler than normal around the Gulf of Mexico, warmer everywhere else. Long-term winter forecast is cool in the south, warm in the west, normal everywhere else.

The standard old wives' tale/rural legend is that cows lying down means it's going to rain soon. No truth to that one either. Cows lie down for a large portion of every day, rain or shine, warm or cold winter approaching.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 14, 2014)

Jeremiah said:


> If the *global* temperatures are warming how can the winters get colder?


Winters are *not* getting colder *GLOBALLY*, dude. Some parts of the U.S. are somewhat cooler, but the the rest of the country and most of the rest of the world is either unusually warm or near average. 

BTW, trying to reason your way through scientific issues that you don't understand, using incomplete or false information, is completely futile. Learn more first but from reputable scientific sources, not denier cult blogs.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 15, 2014)

December is really warming up nicely!!! Probably will be back to around .7c for DEC!!! Then we will see a record for 2014! 

Look at that raise for the northern hemisphere!!!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 15, 2014)

Matthew said:


> December is really warming up nicely!!! Probably will be back to around .7c for DEC!!! Then we will see a record for 2014!
> 
> Look at that raise for the northern hemisphere!!!



Never mind the adjustments and the USCRN that says its all a lie...
Alarmist Adjustments of GISS NOAA Data are fraud on the US Citizens.. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 16, 2014)

Billy Boob, given your lying about studying for a Phd in atmospheric physics, and throwing around terms like null hypothesis without any idea at all about what that means, you calling anyone else a fraud is a laugh


----------



## jc456 (Dec 16, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Same old debunked denier cult propaganda meme.
> ...


 hahahahahhahahahaha, funny that seems to be the only thing you got.  Doesn't matter who it is that believes differently than you.  You, insult mania.  And yet, no experiment.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 16, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


 and what was the PPM before the big ice age?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 16, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 how much do you have invested in the word translation?  hahaahhahahhahhahahaha dude get some new material.  you are B   O   R   I    N    G


----------



## jc456 (Dec 16, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


 and again based on what evidence?  Over and over and you don't post evidence.  LOOk up the word in the dictionary, it is clear you don't know it.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 16, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 again, with no evidence.  Look it up!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Dec 16, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> How temperatures across the globe ranked from January through October 2014.
> *Click image to enlarge.* Credit: NOAA
> 
> Warm Ocean Waters Boosting Typhoons Record Heat Climate Central
> ...


 nice and pretty, but nothing that proves your position! so, just useless material.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 16, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > How temperatures across the globe ranked from January through October 2014.
> ...


 how many times are you going to post this junk? every time it will be called what it is, junk!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Dec 16, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


 and yet, they can't prove it and the observed is working against them.  try again.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 16, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > ReallyKrazyMoron is a denier cult troll, trying desperately (and vainly) to push stupid lies and long since debunked misinformation.
> ...


 and you have the record for the most loaded spoiled potato posts! oh well, garbage is garbage.you should get away from the junk science and see what real science does.  Go read something would you?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 16, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Wouldn't be nearly so hot if those damn Democrats would cool down over the ass-kicking they took in the elections.
> ...


 talk about off topic, try and provide what was requested or all of your posts are off topic!


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 16, 2014)

Just Crazy, the first experiment that demonstrated that CO2 was a potent GHG was done in 1858 by John Tyndall. There have been many experiments since that refined the original observations. That you are too stupid to realize the meanings of the experiments simply reflects on your intellect, no one elses.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 16, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> > I love warmie words like "denier" and "heretic". They have such a long-established provenance in the halls of empirical science. When I was a product manager in Silicon Valley, anyone who used such medieval dismissives in a production meeting, would have been stared at in shock, and handed his severance package the next morning.
> ...


 you deny me the experiment daily, seems it is you who is the denier.  Get it right would you!


----------



## jc456 (Dec 16, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Just Crazy, the first experiment that demonstrated that CO2 was a potent GHG was done in 1858 by John Tyndall. There have been many experiments since that refined the original observations. That you are too stupid to realize the meanings of the experiments simply reflects on your intellect, no one elses.


 I never said it wasn't a ghg.  I said there is little no increase in temperature after the CO2 level is greater than 280PPM as shown by Herr Koch in 1901,  So, try again with the correct experiment.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 16, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


 I already thought he was screaming like a school girl.


----------



## Crick (Dec 16, 2014)

You need to refute the numerous people that have refuted Koch/Angstrom if you want to claim his work was valid.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 16, 2014)

Jeremiah said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Jeremiah said:
> ...


 they'll tell you it was warmer somewhere else, so that makes it ok to claim.  hahahahahahahaahahahhha, I know, it cracks me up to say that as sk00ks says all the time about his man parts!!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 16, 2014)

Thank you, Crick. That has been posted many times, but the idiots still refer to that disproven paper. Really demonstrates just how ignorant this bunch is.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 16, 2014)

Crick said:


> You need to refute the numerous people that have refuted Koch/Angstrom if you want to claim his work was valid.


 Me?  hahahahaahaha nope!  you prove it wrong.  The experiment is done!  Where is the one that disputes it.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 16, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> > If the *global* temperatures are warming how can the winters get colder?
> ...


 see I told you so!!!!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 16, 2014)

Winters have been a bit colder in parts of North America. Maybe 30% of the 2% of the land area that the lower 48 represent globally. Elsewhere, in the rest of the world, they have been warmer. But you know that already.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 16, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy Boob, given your lying about studying for a Phd in atmospheric physics, and throwing around terms like null hypothesis without any idea at all about what that means, you calling anyone else a fraud is a laugh


 too funny coming from you!!! hahahaahahahahaahahaha


----------



## S.J. (Dec 16, 2014)

I like how the global warming cult followers try to make reasonable people look like the kooks by calling them "denier cultists".  They walk in lockstep with those who erroneously insist the earth is warming and we're all gonna die in a few years if we don't redistribute the wealth of the U.S. to the rest of the world and WE are called a cult.  Priceless.  Reminds me of Bill Maher calling his tv show "politically incorrect" when the show was the epitome of political correctness.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 16, 2014)

S.J. said:


> I like how the global warming cult followers try to make reasonable people look like the kooks by calling them "denier cultists".  They walk in lockstep with those who erroneously insist the earth is warming and we're all gonna die in a few years if we don't redistribute the wealth of the U.S. to the rest of the world and WE are called a cult.  Priceless.  Reminds me of Bill Maher calling his tv show "politically incorrect" when the show was the epitome of political correctness.


Well I beg to differ, I think it is they who look like the kooks and do it everyday.  They have nothing of evidence to support their claim. NOTHING.

They like to post graphs with adjusted data in them. hahahahaahahahahaha.  Sorry, annnt!!!


----------



## Wyld Kard (Dec 16, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > LOLOLOLOLOL.......so says the denier cult retard 'WildassCretin' who NEVER EVER even tries to support his absurd claims and delusions with any actual evidence, as everyone has noticed. Just hot air and bullshit, that's all this poor imbecile can manage. He wouldn't know "_real science_" if it bit him on the ass.
> ...



 


Do you practice being stupid or does it come naturally for you, RollingBlunder?


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > LOLOLOLOLOL.......so says the denier cult retard 'WildassCretin' who NEVER EVER even tries to support his absurd claims and delusions with any actual evidence, as everyone has noticed.


And YOU are a goddamn liar as usual.  
I have posted evidence in various different threads.  It's not my fault that YOU didn't post go to those threads to read and respond to any of evidence posted.  And when exactly are YOU going to post some real evidence based on real science to back-up your bullshit claims, other then the countless posts which is bullshit and trying to convince others that AGW/CC is real, when it's a lie.

You're just mad that not everyone believes in and accepts the crap that YOU do.
AGW/CC is a lie. 

RollingBlunder, keeps continually proving that she is a dumbfuck.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Dec 16, 2014)

Why The AGW Lie Persists cosmoscon


----------



## Wyld Kard (Dec 16, 2014)




----------



## mamooth (Dec 16, 2014)

Prelim NASA GISS data out. November 2014 temperature anomaly is +0.65C. Which, while very warm, is only the 9th warmest November.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts dSST.txt

Deniers, you've got a decision to make. Should you declare the data is fraudulent, or should you declare that it only being the 9th warmest November means an ice age is coming? You'll look better if you all get on the same page.

It's going to be close, whether 2014 is the hottest year. It's neck-and-neck with 2010 now. However, Dec. 2010 was merely at +0.44C, so a strong Dec. 2014 can claim the title.


----------



## Spare_change (Dec 16, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Wouldn't be nearly so hot if those damn Democrats would cool down over the ass-kicking they took in the elections.
> ...



Can't handle a little humor? Cuz your umbrage is hilarious!!!


----------



## S.J. (Dec 16, 2014)

jc456 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > I like how the global warming cult followers try to make reasonable people look like the kooks by calling them "denier cultists".  They walk in lockstep with those who erroneously insist the earth is warming and we're all gonna die in a few years if we don't redistribute the wealth of the U.S. to the rest of the world and WE are called a cult.  Priceless.  Reminds me of Bill Maher calling his tv show "politically incorrect" when the show was the epitome of political correctness.
> ...


I agree, they are the ones who look like kooks.  That's the funny part, they think if they call us cultists, no one will notice that THEY are.


----------



## RKMBrown (Dec 17, 2014)

S.J. said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


The intelligence of global warming alarmists is exceeded by a sack of rocks.


----------



## elektra (Dec 17, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


links? Old Crock has a, "missing link". 

What is wrong Old Crock, you ain't got the intelligence to make a single point without a link?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 17, 2014)

There was a time when deniers weren't all sulking delusional conspiracy cultists.

That time is gone, and will never return.

I hesitate to mock them too much any more. I'm worried they might harm themselves. And there's no challenge in it, so it feels like picking on the helpless.


----------



## elektra (Dec 17, 2014)

mamooth said:


> There was a time when deniers weren't all sulking delusional conspiracy cultists.
> 
> That time is gone, and will never return.
> 
> I hesitate to mock them too much any more. I'm worried they might harm themselves. And there's no challenge in it, so it feels like picking on the helpless.


yet, here you are, with nothing but a little wit, which still comes from an, idiot


----------



## jc456 (Dec 18, 2014)

mamooth said:


> There was a time when deniers weren't all sulking delusional conspiracy cultists.
> 
> That time is gone, and will never return.
> 
> I hesitate to mock them too much any more. I'm worried they might harm themselves. And there's no challenge in it, so it feels like picking on the helpless.


there was a time there wasn't message boards and leftist were just allowed to vent all day through the media.  Now with message boards and posts like this one, merely demonstrate what a looney bunch they really are!

Can you say cuckoo?  I thought so!!!!!


----------



## mamooth (Dec 18, 2014)

Politifact's Lie-of-the-Year award for 2014 goes to ... "Global warming is a hoax!".

2014 Readers Poll results PolitiFact

Congratulations to all the deniers here for winning such a prestigious award! Please step to the podium now and give your thanks and credits to everyone who helped you out.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 18, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Politifact's Lie-of-the-Year award for 2014 goes to ... "Global warming is a hoax!".
> 
> 2014 Readers Poll results PolitiFact
> 
> Congratulations to all the deniers here for winning such a prestigious award! Please step to the podium now and give your thanks and credits to everyone who helped you out.


 do you have anything of value to post?  this is just pure nausem! zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## mamooth (Dec 18, 2014)

jc, we'd ask that question of you, being you literally do nothing but whine and throw shit. I just scanned your last 20 posts, and every one of them was a hit-and-run insult. You are probably the #1 most utterly worthless poster on this board. You contribute nothing but noise, and any discussion gets degraded when you enter it.

Now, after you finish basking in the glory of your Liar-of-the-Year award, you might check out some more "failed predictions.". Like this one. Polar bear populations in northeast Alaska area down 40% in 10 years.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie


----------



## jc456 (Dec 18, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc, we'd ask that question of you, being you literally do nothing but whine and throw shit. I just scanned your last 20 posts, and every one of them was a hit-and-run insult. You are probably the #1 most utterly worthless poster on this board. You contribute nothing but noise, and any discussion gets degraded when you enter it.
> 
> Now, after you finish basking in the glory of your Liar-of-the-Year award, you might check out some more "failed predictions.". Like this one. Polar bear populations in northeast Alaska area down 40% in 10 years.
> 
> An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie


funny I did the same thing with yours and you contribute nothing and are the biggest whiner, crybabby on here.  You report folks, that's how much of baby you are.  I have plenty to share when I need to.  My peers have been doing just fine on here and I have let them have the floor.  you know, not interfere!  You on the otherhand, just can't keep your little kitty nose out of anything.  LOL you do crack me up with your stupidity though.

Oh, and I'm still waiting on the experiment that I asked for almost a year ago.  bada---bing


----------



## RKMBrown (Dec 18, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc, we'd ask that question of you, being you literally do nothing but whine and throw shit. I just scanned your last 20 posts, and every one of them was a hit-and-run insult. You are probably the #1 most utterly worthless poster on this board. You contribute nothing but noise, and any discussion gets degraded when you enter it.
> 
> Now, after you finish basking in the glory of your Liar-of-the-Year award, you might check out some more "failed predictions.". Like this one. Polar bear populations in northeast Alaska area down 40% in 10 years.
> 
> An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie


I put that asshat on ignore.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 18, 2014)

RKMBrown said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > jc, we'd ask that question of you, being you literally do nothing but whine and throw shit. I just scanned your last 20 posts, and every one of them was a hit-and-run insult. You are probably the #1 most utterly worthless poster on this board. You contribute nothing but noise, and any discussion gets degraded when you enter it.
> ...


right, such a loser mentality!

BTW, ever get that stupid stick off ya?


----------



## mamooth (May 12, 2015)

2014 was the hottest year on record.

Hence, I'm bumping this thread. It's important to keep pointing and laughing at the crybaby deniers and their hysterical cult conspiracy theories. Being deniers are emotion-driven creatures, they aren't affected by logic. You can't reason them out of their religion, as they weren't reasoned into it. Deniers act the way they do because it brings them emotional comfort. Therefore, the way to make them act differently is to make it emotionally painful for them to be deniers.

That is, all decent and ethical people should mock the denier losers until they cry.

So deniers, what's it feel like to be thought of as such losers by the whole planet? Stings, I bet it does. The entire planet considers you to be cult fruitloops. And the planet is correct.

It's not going to get any better for the denier cult. The laughter directed at you is only going to get louder. So what's the plan for the future? More whining? Even crazier conspiracy theories? You know, repeating all the nonsense that brought about your current faceplant?

Don't wait for your cult leaders to break out the koolaid vat, deniers. Slip away into the jungle now. Save yourselves from the upcoming mass suicide of your cult.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 12, 2015)

mamooth said:


> 2014 was the hottest year on record.
> 
> Hence, I'm bumping this thread. It's important to keep pointing and laughing at the crybaby deniers and their hysterical cult conspiracy theories. Being deniers are emotion-driven creatures, they aren't affected by logic. You can't reason them out of their religion, as they weren't reasoned into it. Deniers act the way they do because it brings them emotional comfort. Therefore, the way to make them act differently is to make it emotionally painful for them to be deniers.
> 
> ...


Off your meds again?


----------



## mamooth (May 12, 2015)

RK, you were one of the simpering sissies who kept yammering delusional cult conspiracy theories. Did you learn your lesson to not just brainlessly parrot cult nonsense? Or are you one of those types who will gladly seek out more humiliation for the glory of his cult?


----------



## peach174 (May 12, 2015)

The artic sea ice is growing at a very rapid pace.
Record Antarctic sea ice a logistic problem for scientists - Yahoo News--
Growing sea ice surrounding Antarctica could prompt scientists to consider relocating research stations on the continent, according to the operations manager of the Australian Antarctic Division.


Rob Wooding said that resupplying Australia's Mawson Station -- the longest continuously operated outpost in Antarctica -- relied on access to a bay, a task increasingly complicated by sea ice blocking the way.

"We are noticing that the sea ice situation is becoming more difficult," Wooding told a media briefing on Monday ahead of two days of meetings between top Antarctic science and logistics experts in Hobart, the capital of Tasmania.

Wooding said that at Mawson, the ice typically only breaks up for one or two months of the summer, but in the last four to six years this has not happened every year, and some years only partially.

"In the 2013-4 season we couldn't get anywhere near Mawson due to the sea ice and we had to get fuel in there by helicopter which is inadequate for the long-term sustainability of the station," he said, adding that the French and Japanese had similar problems.

Seems that they need much more data and time in order to actually know what is really happening with our atmosphere.


----------



## mamooth (May 12, 2015)

Nice attempt at deflection from the record warmth. A lot of deniers are posting that piece today. One of their propaganda blogs must have fed it to them.

The increasing Antarctic sea ice has happened along with _increasing_ temperatures in the area. Deniers, not being the sharpest tools in the shed, seem to think "ice means more cold". Nope. Lots of factors affect ice formation. Wind patterns and water freshening have increased ice formation as temps climbed, just as Dr. Manabe predicted in 1991.

Back to the point, which is temperatures are going up. Global warming. Denying it has crossed the line into delusion.


----------



## peach174 (May 12, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Nice attempt at deflection from the record warmth. A lot of deniers are posting that piece today. One of their propaganda blogs must have fed it to them.
> 
> The increasing Antarctic sea ice has happened along with _increasing_ temperatures in the area. Deniers, not being the sharpest tools in the shed, seem to think "ice means more cold". Nope. Lots of factors affect ice formation. Wind patterns and water freshening have increased ice formation as temps climbed, just as Dr. Manabe predicted in 1991.
> 
> Back to the point, which is temperatures are going up. Global warming. Denying it has crossed the line into delusion.



It is actual scientists that are saying we need more information of what is really happening because the temps have remained steady for the last 15 years.
You are the one who is in denial.


----------



## jc456 (May 12, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Nice attempt at deflection from the record warmth. A lot of deniers are posting that piece today. One of their propaganda blogs must have fed it to them.
> 
> The increasing Antarctic sea ice has happened along with _increasing_ temperatures in the area. Deniers, not being the sharpest tools in the shed, seem to think "ice means more cold". Nope. Lots of factors affect ice formation. Wind patterns and water freshening have increased ice formation as temps climbed, just as Dr. Manabe predicted in 1991.
> 
> Back to the point, which is temperatures are going up. Global warming. Denying it has crossed the line into delusion.


yeah because that scenario follows logic right.  Warmer causes more ice. Tooth you have challenges, and you are your worst enemy.  stupid always seems to find you. post after post.


----------



## jc456 (May 12, 2015)

mamooth said:


> RK, you were one of the simpering sissies who kept yammering delusional cult conspiracy theories. Did you learn your lesson to not just brainlessly parrot cult nonsense? Or are you one of those types who will gladly seek out more humiliation for the glory of his cult?


I see your parroting skills are still abundant.  You keep up with the crackers, because you certainly need them.  have a nice day parrot!!!


----------



## jc456 (May 12, 2015)

mamooth said:


> 2014 was the hottest year on record.
> 
> Hence, I'm bumping this thread. It's important to keep pointing and laughing at the crybaby deniers and their hysterical cult conspiracy theories. Being deniers are emotion-driven creatures, they aren't affected by logic. You can't reason them out of their religion, as they weren't reasoned into it. Deniers act the way they do because it brings them emotional comfort. Therefore, the way to make them act differently is to make it emotionally painful for them to be deniers.
> 
> ...


what exactly is this denier phrase mean?  Oh yeah, you understanding that your cult is denying reality.  I almost forgot.  You've been gone for a while.  But glad to see you still haven't lost your stupid qualities.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 12, 2015)

mamooth said:


> 2014 was the hottest year on record.
> 
> Hence, I'm bumping this thread. It's important to keep pointing and laughing at the crybaby deniers and their hysterical cult conspiracy theories. Being deniers are emotion-driven creatures, they aren't affected by logic. You can't reason them out of their religion, as they weren't reasoned into it. Deniers act the way they do because it brings them emotional comfort. Therefore, the way to make them act differently is to make it emotionally painful for them to be deniers.
> 
> ...



...and by "hottest year in record", are you adding in both the Blob and the Warming that was devoured by the deep pacific ocean?


----------



## jc456 (May 12, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > 2014 was the hottest year on record.
> ...


Frank, how did you like his/ her statement that the warmer surface air is causing the Antarctic build up of ice?  So now he/ she thinks warm air causes ice. extraordinary my friend, extraordinary.

So now not only does warm air melt ice, it makes ice as well. holy crap the looney thoughts off its hands is unbelievable.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 12, 2015)

jc456 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Well Global WarmerCoolering is like that; when it's warmer it's cooler and heat makes more ice. Did you ever hear of Rossby Waves, the Jet Stream and El Nino? Well, they're all caused by Global Climate Change


----------



## RKMBrown (May 12, 2015)

mamooth said:


> RK, you were one of the simpering sissies who kept yammering delusional cult conspiracy theories. Did you learn your lesson to not just brainlessly parrot cult nonsense? Or are you one of those types who will gladly seek out more humiliation for the glory of his cult?


Cult nonsense?  You mean like plants need CO2 to grow?  Or are you talking about the one where CO2 is a very minor percentage of our atmosphere when compared with the dominant green house gas known as water vapor?


----------



## RKMBrown (May 12, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


So Rossby Waves, El Nino, and the Jet stream did not exist before man made climate change?


----------



## mamooth (May 12, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Frank, how did you like his/ her statement that the warmer surface air is causing the Antarctic build up of ice?



I never said or implied such a thing. As usual, you're lying about me. Like you always do. Everyone knows you haven't got the stones to debate anyone honestly.

Now, back to the problems the denier cult faces.

The #3 reason that the whole world laughs at the denier cultists is because they're always whining.

The #2 reason is their chronic rank dishonesty.

And the #1 reason is they suck so badly at the science.

Which of those shortcomings do you cultists plan to address first?


----------



## mamooth (May 12, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> [So El Nino and the Jet stream did not exist before man made climate change?



That's Frank's theory.

In case you haven't noticed, he's a fucking moron.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 12, 2015)

mamooth said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > [So El Nino and the Jet stream did not exist before man made climate change?
> ...



We can't say for certain why the Sun's corona is 200 times hotter than its surface, why Jupiter radiates twice as much heat as it receives from the Sun or what the Moon is doing in orbit around the Earth, all we know for certain is that a wisp of CO2 will melt the polar ice caps, raise the oceans 600 feet and turn all frogs left-handed


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 12, 2015)

mamooth said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > [So El Nino and the Jet stream did not exist before man made climate change?
> ...



Denier is a Cult word. It's like a Cult secret handshake. As soon as you head someone say it, it means they're a Cult member


----------



## mamooth (May 12, 2015)

Cultists like Frank don't like to be called cultists. It gives them a big sad. Too bad. Denier cultists need to experience maximum public humiliation, as that will discourage them from diving deeper into the stupid end of the stupid pool.

It's a type of tough love. We only give it to the deniers because we care.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 12, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Cultists like Frank don't like to be called cultists. It gives them a big sad. Too bad. Denier cultists need to experience maximum public humiliation, as that will discourage them from diving deeper into the stupid end of the stupid pool.
> 
> It's a type of tough love. We only give it to the deniers because we care.




"Denier is a Cult word. It's like a Cult secret handshake. As soon as you head someone say it, it means they're a Cult member"


----------



## RKMBrown (May 12, 2015)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Frank, how did you like his/ her statement that the warmer surface air is causing the Antarctic build up of ice?
> ...


Let me get this straight.  You call me a cult fanatic. I ask regarding what... and then in response to a question... you call me a liar.  Interesting.  So basically you are a whining piece of shit that can't read or write.


----------



## mamooth (May 12, 2015)

You might want to double check who I was responding to there.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 12, 2015)

mamooth said:


> You might want to double check who I was responding to there.


It does not show "who" you replied to unless you quote them.  I suppose I could switch to thread mode if this forum supports that.


----------



## jc456 (May 12, 2015)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Frank, how did you like his/ her statement that the warmer surface air is causing the Antarctic build up of ice?
> ...



Did you write this or not?


mamooth said:


> Nice attempt at deflection from the record warmth. A lot of deniers are posting that piece today. One of their propaganda blogs must have fed it to them.
> 
> _*The increasing Antarctic sea ice has happened along with _increasing_ temperatures in the area.*_ Deniers, not being the sharpest tools in the shed, seem to think "ice means more cold". Nope. Lots of factors affect ice formation. Wind patterns and water freshening have increased ice formation as temps climbed, just as Dr. Manabe predicted in 1991.
> 
> Back to the point, which is temperatures are going up. Global warming. Denying it has crossed the line into delusion.



Tell me where I lied?  it is your typed words!!!!

I mean you once asked if we knew what increasing temperature meant.  We said warming.  Right?


----------



## RKMBrown (May 12, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > You might want to double check who I was responding to there.
> ...


Nope, this forum software by XenForo does not support a "threaded" mode.  Thus, because you did not cite who you were talking to, you could have been talking to yourself for all we know.


----------



## jc456 (May 12, 2015)

mantooth, i hear crickets.


----------



## jc456 (May 12, 2015)

and still ......


----------



## Ernie S. (May 12, 2015)




----------



## ScienceRocks (May 12, 2015)

The rss satellite is a defective piece of shit and the Uah has a denier leading it...Spencer writes on his blog like he is a full fledge denier and does everything in his power to rig his data set.

God bless the best science institutions on earth. Goddamn all that would hurt it.


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 12, 2015)

Wind, solar, geo-thermal, nuclear, fusion, and wave is still the future. Doesn't mater what the climate does!!! Oil is so 19th century...lol


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 12, 2015)

mamooth said:


> 2014 was the hottest year on record.
> 
> Hence, I'm bumping this thread. It's important to keep pointing and laughing at the crybaby deniers and their hysterical cult conspiracy theories. Being deniers are emotion-driven creatures, they aren't affected by logic. You can't reason them out of their religion, as they weren't reasoned into it. Deniers act the way they do because it brings them emotional comfort. Therefore, the way to make them act differently is to make it emotionally painful for them to be deniers.
> 
> ...


 
Gosh, the hottest year since the 1880s. Well, I'm convinced.
Let's cripple our economy and waste trillions on less reliable "green energy".
Gotta drop the temp in 2080 by 0.1 degrees.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 12, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Mammyooth is a Cultist and a nut


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 12, 2015)

It's not just the hottest, it's the Hotterest!!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 12, 2015)

Hotterest EVAH!!!!!

At this rate, by 2015 the temperature will be a bazillion degrees! On Planet Earth!  at Night!

DENIER!!!


----------



## mamooth (May 12, 2015)




----------



## mamooth (May 12, 2015)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Of course I did. And anyone who's not a liar or a retard understands that not saying warming caused more sea ice. Non-retards understand that correlation isn't causation.

So, you have a problem. You made such a stupid mistake. Now, a  mentally healthy person could admit making a mistake. No problem. You could just admit to being stupid. It's not like anyone doesn't already know you're a moron.

However, you're afflicted with a multitude of personality flaws. Being one of my dickless stalkers tops the list of them. That means you don't have the 'nads to admit making a mistake. Therefore, you're going to double down on stupid, cry very hard, and graduate into flat out lying.

And I'm going to keep pointing that out and laughing. My only complaint is that you make this too damn easy. Now, squeal for me some more, you sad little cult pisschugger.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 12, 2015)

Matthew said:


> The rss satellite is a defective piece of shit and the Uah has a denier leading it...Spencer writes on his blog like he is a full fledge denier and does everything in his power to rig his data set.
> 
> God bless the best science institutions on earth. Goddamn all that would hurt it.


Give it up your grants are about to run out.  You're gonna have to get a real job.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 12, 2015)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


Thank god for ignore. bye...


----------



## mamooth (May 12, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



RK, everyone else in this forum is using threaded mode.



> Thus, because you did not cite who you were talking to, you could have been talking to yourself for all we know.



RK, you need to fix whatever problem it is you're having with the software. If you did, you'd look a lot less stupid.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 12, 2015)

Matthew said:


> The rss satellite is a defective piece of shit and the Uah has a denier leading it...Spencer writes on his blog like he is a full fledge denier and does everything in his power to rig his data set.
> 
> God bless the best science institutions on earth. Goddamn all that would hurt it.


 
*Spencer writes on his blog like he is a full fledge denier and does everything in his power to rig his data set.*

Bastard! Only the warmers get to rig their data.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 12, 2015)

mamooth said:


>



Denier is a Cult handshake word


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 12, 2015)

peach174 said:


> The artic sea ice is growing at a very rapid pace.
> Record Antarctic sea ice a logistic problem for scientists - Yahoo News--
> Growing sea ice surrounding Antarctica could prompt scientists to consider relocating research stations on the continent, according to the operations manager of the Australian Antarctic Division.
> 
> ...



Now that RSS and UAH are the gold standard at climate monitoring the adjustments made by your lying little scumbags over at NOAA and GISS are in a tizzy...

2014 was no where near close to a record breaking year... 





EPIC Mantooth FAIL


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 12, 2015)

mamooth said:


> RK, you were one of the simpering sissies who kept yammering delusional cult conspiracy theories. Did you learn your lesson to not just brainlessly parrot cult nonsense? Or are you one of those types who will gladly seek out more humiliation for the glory of his cult?


Obviously the parrot you are hasn't learned yet to quit lying..  SO hot air now makes lots of ice... Good to know...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 12, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > RK, you were one of the simpering sissies who kept yammering delusional cult conspiracy theories. Did you learn your lesson to not just brainlessly parrot cult nonsense? Or are you one of those types who will gladly seek out more humiliation for the glory of his cult?
> ...


 
Global Warming = more ice.
Global Cooling = more ice.
Global Climate Change = more ice.
Global Extreme Weather = more ice.

The only cure is more taxes and bigger government!


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2015)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


so mental midget, admit you stated that warmer air makes more ice.  Let's see it in writing!!!  Again, here is your statement and you admit you made it, so the liar is you...



mamooth said:


> Nice attempt at deflection from the record warmth. A lot of deniers are posting that piece today. One of their propaganda blogs must have fed it to them.
> 
> _*The increasing Antarctic sea ice has happened along with _increasing_ temperatures*_ in the area. Deniers, not being the sharpest tools in the shed, seem to think "ice means more cold". Nope. Lots of factors affect ice formation. Wind patterns and water freshening have increased ice formation as temps climbed, just as Dr. Manabe predicted in 1991.
> 
> Back to the point, which is temperatures are going up. Global warming. Denying it has crossed the line into delusion.


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2015)

tooth....still hearing...


----------



## Wyld Kard (May 13, 2015)

mamooth said:


> 2014 was the hottest year on record.
> 
> Hence, I'm bumping this thread. It's important to keep pointing and laughing at the crybaby deniers and their hysterical cult conspiracy theories. Being deniers are emotion-driven creatures, they aren't affected by logic. You can't reason them out of their religion, as they weren't reasoned into it. Deniers act the way they do because it brings them emotional comfort. Therefore, the way to make them act differently is to make it emotionally painful for them to be deniers.
> 
> ...




Your entire post is equal to a huge pile of bullshit.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 13, 2015)

Wildcard said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > 2014 was the hottest year on record.
> ...



Your evidence for which is?


----------



## Wyld Kard (May 13, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



And where is any your evidence claiming that AGW is real and that it's a threat?

Oh, that's right.  You don't really have any because all that you ever really post is bullshit, that you continually claim to be true.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 13, 2015)

Wildcard said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...



The definition of INSANITY;  Doing something over and over which fails without question, while each time expecting a different result.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 13, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


I believe Empirical Evidence has laid the whole AGW thing waste.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 13, 2015)

Wildcard said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...



Well, a dumb ignorant fuck like you would, of course, never read real science, in any case.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## Wyld Kard (May 13, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...




YAWN.  Another stupid post from Old Crock.

No, actually you are the dumb, ignorant fuck who was gullible enough to believe and accept the bullshit about AGW/CC as being the truth, and then try to convince others of your brainwashed beliefs.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 13, 2015)

I see. All the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world have policy statements that state AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. But your obese junkies on the AM radio, fake British Lords, and un-degreed ex-TV weathermen know so much more than the scientists that have spent decades studying their disciplines. Fellow, you are one silly hick.


----------



## Wyld Kard (May 13, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> I see. All the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world have policy statements that state AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. But your obese junkies on the AM radio, fake British Lords, and un-degreed ex-TV weathermen know so much more than the scientists that have spent decades studying their disciplines. Fellow, you are one silly hick.





> AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.



You've been posting that same statement over and over and over, and all you have been doing is proving what a gullible moron you really are, over and over and over.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 13, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> I see. All the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world have policy statements that state AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. But your obese junkies on the AM radio, fake British Lords, and un-degreed ex-TV weathermen know so much more than the scientists that have spent decades studying their disciplines. Fellow, you are one silly hick.



Your appeals to only your authorities is becoming tiresome drivel.. You have been presented with empirical evidence over and over again and you ignore it for your fantasy models that cant predict even one day correctly.. Yet somehow these same fantasy failures can predict the future...?  This is the definition of insanity..


----------



## RKMBrown (May 14, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


ROFL look at this crap:

"Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), *although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere*."

Now the global warming alarmists want us to believe co2 acts like a solid?  ROFL 

No dumb ass.  It's like a tiny trace of co2 in the water that has little to no effect.


----------



## jc456 (May 14, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


----------



## jc456 (May 14, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> I see. All the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world have policy statements that state AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. But your obese junkies on the AM radio, fake British Lords, and un-degreed ex-TV weathermen know so much more than the scientists that have spent decades studying their disciplines. Fellow, you are one silly hick.


how many times have you now posted this paragraph?  Dude, you can post it another 1000 times, it still going to get the same response.  go back and read the previous 1000 responses.


----------



## jc456 (May 14, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...


It is also the site that has the Herr Koch 1901 experiment that has never been debunked. I've told him and the others at least fifteen times. And others have as well.


----------



## jc456 (May 14, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


exactly, your evidence is what?


----------



## mamooth (May 14, 2015)

Some of the evidence would be the hard data of global temperatures.

Preliminary NASA GISS global temp average for April 2015 is +0.75C. That's the second highest April ever, beaten only by the El Nino year of 2010. The Jan - Apr 2015 average is the highest for any Jan - Apr period. So, the trend is for 2015 to beat the 2014 record high.

And in response to reality, deniers will double down on their idiot conspiracy theories. That's why they're called deniers, because their cult is entirely about denying reality.

And that's why the whole planet keeps laughing at the denier cult.


----------



## jc456 (May 14, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Some of the evidence would be the hard data of global temperatures.
> 
> Preliminary NASA GISS global temp average for April 2015 is +0.75C. That's the second highest April ever, beaten only by the El Nino year of 2010. The Jan - Apr 2015 average is the highest for any Jan - Apr period. So, the trend is for 2015 to beat the 2014 record high.
> 
> ...


Tooth,  we've told you before, your data is fudged.  You keep having mental lapses where you forget that you've been told that  and as such your post is not viable to the argument.  Yet you keep posting it.

The actual data has been posted in other threads.  you should pull those graphs and data and use that from now on.


----------



## mamooth (May 14, 2015)

Now jc adds some fine paranoia into his histrionic personality disorder. The whole world is plotting against him, he says, and his tiny kook fringe cult alone knows the real truth.

Essentially all hardcore deniers have major personality disorders. Healthy minds simply don't get sucked into the denier cult.


----------



## Ernie S. (May 14, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


































*CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?*
Link to this page
*What the science says...*
Select a level... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


*Basic* 



 Intermediate  
CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.  In fact, about 90% of the global warming _followed_ the CO2 increase.

*Climate Myth...*
CO2 lags temperature
"An article in _Science_ magazine illustrated that a rise in carbon dioxide did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged behind temperature rises by 200 to 1000 years.  A rise in carbon dioxide levels could not have caused a rise in temperature if it followed the temperature." (Joe Barton)

Earth’s climate has varied widely over its history, from ice ages characterised by large ice sheets covering many land areas, to warm periods with no ice at the poles. Several factors have affected past climate change, including solar variability, volcanic activity and changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, based on Antarctic ice core data, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.






_Figure 1: Vostok ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration and temperature change._


----------



## Ernie S. (May 14, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> I see. All the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world have policy statements that state AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. But your obese junkies on the AM radio, fake British Lords, and un-degreed ex-TV weathermen know so much more than the scientists that have spent decades studying their disciplines. Fellow, you are one silly hick.


*Fakegate: The Obnoxious Fabrication of Global Warming*


----------



## Ernie S. (May 14, 2015)

HIR Climategate Are IPCC scientists guilty of willful deceit 


I can go on and on, but suffice it to say that I don't believe unethical and dishonest people in any profession. I find those character flaws in scientists to be particularly disturbing.

But go ahead. Buy as much snake oil as you want. It's your money (and credibility) at stake. All I ask is you don't try to steal my resources to support your religion.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 14, 2015)

I started this thread eight months ago and the topic concerned the fact that even then, back in September 2014, climate scientists were predicting that 2014 was very likely to be the next new 'hottest year on record'. Well, 2014 did, in fact, turn out to be the new hottest year on record. And now, so far, 2015 is even hotter, and, with the El Niño in the Pacific, this year is now on track to become next new hottest year on record, further demolishing the idiotic denier cult propaganda memes.

The scientific fact is that Earth is continuously warming and had been for many decades now. As long as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels remain severely elevated as they are now, less energy will be able to escape away into space than is being received from the sun *every day*, so our planet will continue to warm up a little more every year. Variations in several natural climate factors can, to some degree, either enhance or mask the reflection of the underlying continuous warming trend in the surface air temperature records. Surface air temperatures account for less than 3% of the sun's energy the Earth is receiving, while the oceans are absorbing over 90% of the sun's heat. Even in just the surface air temperature record though, the warming trend is very clear. Good instrumental surface air temperature records extend back to 1880, and much farther in certain specific locales.




*Figure 1 Global temperature (annual values) in the data from NASA GISS (orange) and from Cowtan & Way (blue), i.e. HadCRUT4 with interpolated data gaps. (source - RealClimate)*

In this thread, I had mentioned that November 2013 was THE warmest November on record and that January 2014 was the 4th warmest January on record and also the 347th *consecutive* month with an average global temperature above the 20th century average. Well, 2014 turned into a string of record high temperature months and ended up being the next new 'hottest year on record', above 2010 and 2005, the previous record holders.

* March 2014 was also, like January, the fourth warmest March on record, surpassing the old record high set in March 2010, the previous hottest year on record.

* April 2014 tied with April 2010 for the record highest global average temperatures for the month.

* May was THE hottest May on record, surpassing the previous record high set in 2010. Four of the five warmest Mays on record have occurred in the past five years: 2010 (second warmest), 2012 (third warmest), 2013 (fifth warmest), and 2014 (warmest); currently, 1998 has the fourth warmest May on record. Additionally, May 2014 marked the 39th consecutive May and 351st consecutive month (more than 29 years) with a global temperature above the 20th century average.

* June was also the hottest June on record. Nine of the ten warmest Junes on record have occurred during the 21st century, including each of the past five years. Additionally, June 2014 marked the 38th consecutive June and 352nd consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last below-average global temperature for June was June 1976 and the last below-average global temperature for any month was February 1985.

* July 2014, like January and March, ended up being the fourth warmest July on record. Eight of the 10 warmest July's have occurred within the past 10 years (2002 also ranks among the 10 warmest).

* August 2014 was the warmest August on record for the globe since records began in 1880. Nine of the 10 warmest August's on record have occurred during the 21st century. Additionally, August 2014 marked the 38th consecutive August with a temperature above the 20th century average. The last below-average global temperature for August occurred in 1976.

* September 2014 also set a record as the warmest September in the 135-year period of record.

* October 2014 also set a record with global temperature averaged across the world's land and ocean surfaces coming in as the highest on record for the month, at 0.74°C (1.33°F) above the 20th century average. This also marks the third consecutive month and fifth of the past six with a record high global temperature for its respective month (July was fourth highest).

* November 2014 was the seventh warmest November on record. The 12 warmest Novembers on record have all occurred during the 21st century.

* December 2014 also set the record as the hottest December since records began in 1880, surpassing the previous record set in 2006. This is the 10th consecutive month (since March 2014) with a global monthly temperature ranking among the seven highest for its respective month. December also marks the sixth month of 2014 to set a new monthly high temperature record. December was the 358th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average.

The year 2014 was the warmest year across global land and ocean surfaces since records began in 1880. The annually-averaged temperature was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), easily breaking the previous records of 2005 and 2010. This also marks the 38th consecutive year (since 1977) that the yearly global temperature was above average. Including 2014, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 135-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. 1998 currently ranks no higher than the fourth warmest year on record.

So, 2014, from January to December, was the hottest calendar year on record going back to at least 1880 with the instrumental record, and very probably much, much further back according to the proxie temperature records. The calendar year is arbitrary. Scientists also calculate the running hottest twelve months on record. This has provided additional evidence of the continuing increase in global temperatures. After the 2014 calendar year captured the record as the hottest year on record, February 2014 to January 2015 beat the record to become the new hottest twelve months on record. But that record was short lived since March 2014 to February 2015 wound up as the new hottest twelve months on record. Now that record has also been broken because April 2014 to March 2015 is currently the new hottest twelve months on record. With the El Niño conditions in the pacific, the rest of 2015 will almost certainly be breaking even more high temperature records.





*This is a 12-month moving average, that shows the march of temperature changes over time, rather than just once every calendar year, *

*2015 Already Setting Heat Records*
LiveScience
by Becky Oskin, Senior Writer
April 17, 2015
*The first three months of 2015 set new global heat records, government officials announced today (April 17). January, February and March set new high-temperature records, respectively; each month was warmer than any on the books since record keeping started 136 years ago. March also ended the hottest 12-month period on record, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported. Seven of the past 11 months have tied or set new record-high monthly temperatures.






Temperature differences (from the global average) during March. - Credit: NOAA*


----------



## Ernie S. (May 14, 2015)

What fudged data set did THAT come from?


----------



## RollingThunder (May 14, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> What fudged data set did THAT come from?


The dark stinky "_fudge_" you pack between your ears explains all of your braindead posts.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 14, 2015)

Rolling Thunder, what about the Blob?  Did you include the Blob?


----------



## Ernie S. (May 14, 2015)

RollingThunder said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > What fudged data set did THAT come from?
> ...


In other words, from the discredited IPCC data.... Did they lose the raw numbers this year too?


----------



## RollingThunder (May 14, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> In other words, from the discredited IPCC data.... Did they lose the raw numbers this year too?


Insane crackpot conspiracy theories are all the denier cultists have left to work with to try to deny the scientific evidence supporting AGW/CC, since the evidence of continuing and increasing warming of the planet has become so obvious to everybody who doesn't have their head jammed up their ass.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 14, 2015)

There are many agencies from several countries monitoring the temperature. And satellites from the US, Russia, China, Japan, India, and the ESA. Now you either have to say that all these differant people are conspiring to tell us lies, or that you are full of shit. I do believe that the latter is the fact.


----------



## Ernie S. (May 14, 2015)

RollingThunder said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > In other words, from the discredited IPCC data.... Did they lose the raw numbers this year too?
> ...


The evidence AND those providing it are proven liars and hardly "scientists" looking for the truth.

If you believe IPCC, I've got a good buy on a late model Corvette for you.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 14, 2015)

*Figure 2.* Retreat of South Cascade Glacier, Washington, during the 20th Century and the beginning of the 21st Century.

*This is what we are seeing for the majority of glaciers in the world.*


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Now jc adds some fine paranoia into his histrionic personality disorder. The whole world is plotting against him, he says, and his tiny kook fringe cult alone knows the real truth.
> 
> Essentially all hardcore deniers have major personality disorders. Healthy minds simply don't get sucked into the denier cult.








It's not paranoia when they have admitted to the alterations though is it...


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> *Figure 2.* Retreat of South Cascade Glacier, Washington, during the 20th Century and the beginning of the 21st Century.
> 
> *This is what we are seeing for the majority of glaciers in the world.*








Oh, gee lookey here, the glacier loss was most all accomplished before 1900.  Who woulda thunk it based on the misleading tripe that olfraud et al push out.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 14, 2015)




----------



## ChrisL (May 14, 2015)

Heck, it's too cold here in New England and our summers are WAY too short.    Bring on global warming baby!  Some like it hot!!!


----------



## Ernie S. (May 14, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> *Figure 2.* Retreat of South Cascade Glacier, Washington, during the 20th Century and the beginning of the 21st Century.
> 
> *This is what we are seeing for the majority of glaciers in the world.*


Snow melts....

*North America Late Cretaceous*

*



*
*Damned Hummers and Escalaids!*


----------



## Ernie S. (May 14, 2015)

What is the "right" global temperature average?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 14, 2015)

Once again Walleyes is demostrating what a lying fuck he truly is. He uses one glacier to try to refute the retreat of the vast majority of glaciers around the world.


Global glacier retreat


*






*
*Western Canada Mountains*


----------



## Old Rocks (May 14, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Figure 2.* Retreat of South Cascade Glacier, Washington, during the 20th Century and the beginning of the 21st Century.
> ...


Tell me, do you practice at being a really dumb fuck? Just what are you trying to say>


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 14, 2015)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Now jc adds some fine paranoia into his histrionic personality disorder. The whole world is plotting against him, he says, and his tiny kook fringe cult alone knows the real truth.
> ...




Hey westwall - if a weather station changes its regular temperature recording time from noon to 1 pm , and all of a sudden it sees a 1 degree rise in average recorded temperature - did the Earth actually warm by 1 degree?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 14, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Once again Walleyes is demostrating what a lying fuck he truly is. He uses one glacier to try to refute the retreat of the vast majority of glaciers around the world.
> 
> 
> Global glacier retreat
> ...


----------



## Ernie S. (May 14, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


I would respond, but you are incapable of understanding. There's no point


----------



## Ernie S. (May 14, 2015)

Do you see a pattern here?


----------



## Ernie S. (May 14, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Depends on who's math you use. Michael Mann's math says it must, and if the data still doesn't show what it "should", you "adjust" the previous year's data and "lose" the original copies.


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Once again Walleyes is demostrating what a lying fuck he truly is. He uses one glacier to try to refute the retreat of the vast majority of glaciers around the world.
> 
> 
> Global glacier retreat
> ...









You mean just like you did?  And no, there are multiple glacial terminuses in the chart you silly little boy.  Learn how to read a map.


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...








I don't know poopy.  When they move those weather stations from rural areas to airports covered by miles of tarmac do they read higher, or lower than they did originally when they were properly sited?


----------



## ChrisL (May 14, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Do they really do that?  How dishonest!!  What is with the global warmers anyway?  Why do they want to lie to us?


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...







Yes, they do.  Most recently they have been caught going back and falsifying the global temperature data from 50 years ago to make it colder back then, so that the "warmer" temperatures today can be declared "record setting".


----------



## ChrisL (May 14, 2015)

westwall said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Why?  Why do they want to make us believe something that isn't true?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 14, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...








 http://
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Here are the thermometers they used back then


----------



## Ernie S. (May 14, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


They want to lie to us so they can tax us and grow global bureaucracy.
About 5 years ago when the IPCC's emails got hacked, it became known that they adjusted data to fit their predictions. When a Freedom of Information request sought the orriginal data set, we were told that it was "lost".

Like Lois Lehrner's and hillary clinton's emails and hillary's Rose Law Firm billing records.

Fucking LIBERALS!


----------



## ChrisL (May 14, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



I hate politicians, but it's certainly not JUST liberal politicians that lie . . . they are basically all the same to me.


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...










Money and power.  Mainly money for the "scientists" but the politicians pushing it want power over pretty much everything that you do.  We're talking tens of trillions of dollars here.  The largest fraud of all time.


----------



## Wyld Kard (May 14, 2015)

RollingThunder said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > In other words, from the discredited IPCC data.... Did they lose the raw numbers this year too?
> ...






> scientific evidence supporting AGW/CC


Really?  What scientific evidence?  Oh you mean all those bullshit lies, and misinformation, and fraudulent science that gullible dumbasses like yourself believe to be true.  

That so-called "scientific evidence"?


----------



## ChrisL (May 14, 2015)

westwall said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Well, I do find it strange how they continually push this global warming stuff.  Now, what makes them think anything would work to stop it.  I would assume that it is one of those things that, once it gets going, there isn't much humans would be able to do to stop it or even slow it down.  

Another thing I wonder about is why couldn't this just be a kind of cycle that the earth goes through?  They can only go back so far in history to find out and even then, the accuracy of their findings could be questionable.  The earth has gone through warming and cooling trends in the past before human beings even existed after all.


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...







Everything is cyclic.  The problem is you can't squeeze the public for money if it's natural.  That's why the propaganda assault.


----------



## Ernie S. (May 14, 2015)

See my post # 832


----------



## Kosh (May 14, 2015)

westwall said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



James Hansen had to support that 16 room mansion and his Bentley somehow..


----------



## Ernie S. (May 14, 2015)

Kosh said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


He was going to write a book called An Unsupportable Scam, but lost his outline.


----------



## Kosh (May 14, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Well he does still command that $30,000 per 30 minutes speaking fee to talk about AGW while flying on jets, riding in limos and staying in 5 star hotels..


----------



## Ernie S. (May 14, 2015)

Great gig, if you can get it, but my resume is somewhat limited. I've never lost emails, fudged data or denied having sex with Monica Lewinsky.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 14, 2015)

RollingThunder said:


> Insane crackpot conspiracy theories are all the denier cultists have left to work with to try to deny the scientific evidence supporting AGW/CC, since the evidence of continuing and increasing warming of the planet has become so obvious to everybody who doesn't have their head jammed up their ass.





Wildcard said:


> Really?  What scientific evidence?


The enormous amounts of scientific evidence that has convinced virtually the entire world scientific community that AGW/CC is very real and very dangerous to our civilization, our food sources, and the Earth's biosphere, you poor deluded nutjob. The scientific evidence that you keep yourself from seeing by your simple expedient of keeping your head firmly lodged up your ass.

*Climate change: How do we know?*
NASA

*Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming*

*How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?*








Wildcard said:


> Oh you mean all those bullshit lies, and misinformation, and fraudulent science that gullible dumbasses like yourself believe to be true.  That so-called "scientific evidence"?


As I just said: "_*Insane crackpot conspiracy theories are all the denier cultists have left to work with to try to deny the scientific evidence supporting AGW/CC"*_

Thanks for so quickly demonstrating that fact, dumbass.


----------



## Kosh (May 14, 2015)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Insane crackpot conspiracy theories are all the denier cultists have left to work with to try to deny the scientific evidence supporting AGW/CC, since the evidence of continuing and increasing warming of the planet has become so obvious to everybody who doesn't have their head jammed up their ass.
> ...



So basically nothing!

Even James Hansen who invited the whole AGW cult movement can not prove with datasets and source code that CO2 controls climate, not even after 35+ years..


----------



## Wyld Kard (May 14, 2015)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Insane crackpot conspiracy theories are all the denier cultists have left to work with to try to deny the scientific evidence supporting AGW/CC, since the evidence of continuing and increasing warming of the planet has become so obvious to everybody who doesn't have their head jammed up their ass.
> ...






> The enormous amounts of scientific evidence that has convinced virtually the entire world scientific community that AGW/CC is very real and very dangerous to our civilization, our food sources, and the Earth's biosphere



And thanks for proving that you're still *FULL OF SHIT* as usual, dumbfuck.


----------



## Ernie S. (May 14, 2015)

Let's suppose you were convicted of a crime in which the principle witness against you was convicted of perjury. Wouldn't you be wanting to get out of jail?

You people keep citing "science" that is based on lies.


----------



## mamooth (May 14, 2015)

So, after seeing the April 2015 data, all the deniers here have gone into full blubbering meltdown mode. With their eyes all red and weepy, snot dribbling down their faces, they've run to each other for comfort in a big manly group hug. A totally 110% heterosexual manly big group hug, you understand. After they whisper some sweet nothing conspiracies to each other, maybe have a smoke, they come on back, recharged and refreshed.

It's not going to get any better for the deniers. They're part of a dying cult. And they know it, hence the hysteria. That probably ends one way, with a koolaid vat, though we're talking a figurative koolaid vat this time. Take my good advice, deniers, and slip away into the jungle now. After you reappear, pretend that you were never a denier. We'll promise not to needle you over it. We'll give up that satisfaction, just to keep you alive, that's the kind of good people we are.


----------



## Kosh (May 14, 2015)

mamooth said:


> So, after seeing the April 2015 data, all the deniers here have gone into full blubbering meltdown mode. With their eyes all red and weepy, snot dribbling down their faces, they've run to each other for comfort in a big manly group hug. A totally 110% heterosexual manly big group hug, you understand. After they whisper some sweet nothing conspiracies to each other, they come on back, recharged and refreshed.
> 
> It's not going to get any better for the deniers. They're part of a dying cult. And they know it, hence the hysteria. That probably ends one way, with a koolaid vat, though we're talking a figurative koolaid vat this time. Take my good advice, deniers, and slip away into the jungle now. After you reappear, pretend that you were never a denier. We'll promise not to needle you over it. We'll give up that satisfaction, just to keep you alive, that's the kind of good people we are.



And of course the AGW cult has nothing but their religious propaganda!


----------



## RollingThunder (May 14, 2015)

RollingThunder said:


> Insane crackpot conspiracy theories are all the denier cultists have left to work with to try to deny the scientific evidence supporting AGW/CC, since the evidence of continuing and increasing warming of the planet has become so obvious to everybody who doesn't have their head jammed up their ass.





Wildcard said:


> Really?  What scientific evidence?





RollingThunder said:


> The enormous amounts of scientific evidence that has convinced virtually the entire world scientific community that AGW/CC is very real and very dangerous to our civilization, our food sources, and the Earth's biosphere, you poor deluded nutjob. The scientific evidence that you keep yourself from seeing by your simple expedient of keeping your head firmly lodged up your ass.
> 
> *Climate change: How do we know?*
> NASA
> ...





Kosh said:


> So basically nothing!
> 
> Even James Hansen who invited the whole AGW cult movement can not prove with datasets and source code that CO2 controls climate, not even after 35+ years..


It only looks that way to you because of how extremely far you have your head jammed up your ass, you poor delusional retard. Ignoring the evidence doesn't make it magically go away, numbnuts.


----------



## ChrisL (May 14, 2015)

mamooth said:


> So, after seeing the April 2015 data, all the deniers here have gone into full blubbering meltdown mode. With their eyes all red and weepy, snot dribbling down their faces, they've run to each other for comfort in a big manly group hug. A totally 110% heterosexual manly big group hug, you understand. After they whisper some sweet nothing conspiracies to each other, maybe have a smoke, they come on back, recharged and refreshed.
> 
> It's not going to get any better for the deniers. They're part of a dying cult. And they know it, hence the hysteria. That probably ends one way, with a koolaid vat, though we're talking a figurative koolaid vat this time. Take my good advice, deniers, and slip away into the jungle now. After you reappear, pretend that you were never a denier. We'll promise not to needle you over it. We'll give up that satisfaction, just to keep you alive, that's the kind of good people we are.



Well, if they change and manipulate data and if they place their temperature measuring equipment in areas that tend to be hotter (because of black top or perhaps on the roof of a building), then why should they be taken seriously?  Also, the fact that they are funded by the government and probably have a self interest in keeping their jobs?


----------



## Kosh (May 14, 2015)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Insane crackpot conspiracy theories are all the denier cultists have left to work with to try to deny the scientific evidence supporting AGW/CC, since the evidence of continuing and increasing warming of the planet has become so obvious to everybody who doesn't have their head jammed up their ass.
> ...



Once again the AGW cult shows that their religious propaganda is just that, propaganda not based on any real science..

The true deniers of real science are the AGW cult!


----------



## Old Rocks (May 14, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> Great gig, if you can get it, but my resume is somewhat limited. I've never lost emails, fudged data or denied having sex with Monica Lewinsky.


I doubt that you have anything to deny with any female.


----------



## mamooth (May 14, 2015)

> Well, if they change and manipulate data and if they place their temperature measuring equipment in areas that tend to be hotter (because of black top or perhaps on the roof of a building), then why should they be taken seriously? Also, the fact that they are funded by the government and probably have a self interest in keeping their jobs?



You've just stated some of the reasons why the world doesn't take deniers seriously.

Deneirs been caught faking and manipulating the data over and over.

Deniers have refused to compensate for UHI effects.

All the financial incentives are on the denier side. Climate scientists essentially take a pay cut to tell the truth, which gives them added credibility. Any scientist could double their salary by becoming a denier.

Deniers tend to be corrupt and dishonest political hacks, so the world now treats them that way.

And no, we don't feel sorry them them. Deniers shit their own bed, so now they get to sleep in it.


----------



## Kosh (May 14, 2015)

mamooth said:


> > Well, if they change and manipulate data and if they place their temperature measuring equipment in areas that tend to be hotter (because of black top or perhaps on the roof of a building), then why should they be taken seriously? Also, the fact that they are funded by the government and probably have a self interest in keeping their jobs?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes that is correct AGW "scientists" have done all that and have proven they despise any real science..


----------



## ChrisL (May 14, 2015)

mamooth said:


> > Well, if they change and manipulate data and if they place their temperature measuring equipment in areas that tend to be hotter (because of black top or perhaps on the roof of a building), then why should they be taken seriously? Also, the fact that they are funded by the government and probably have a self interest in keeping their jobs?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You have not addressed my question to you.  You have simply avoided it by trying to put attention elsewhere.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 14, 2015)

LOL. Kosh, a dumb ass like you knows enough to even understand a little of what the scientists are doing? Not at all. All you are interested in is preserving your ignorance.


----------



## Kosh (May 14, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. Kosh, a dumb ass like you knows enough to even understand a little of what the scientists are doing? Not at all. All you are interested in is preserving your ignorance.



Once again the AGW cult demonstrates that AGW religious dogma will trump real science any day of the week..


----------



## mamooth (May 14, 2015)

mamooth said:


> You have not addressed my question to you.  You have simply avoided it by trying to put attention elsewhere.



I did address it, by pointing out the opposite was true.

If you want to be taken seriously, stop parroting such cult conspiracy theories. You are not part of a brave handful of patriots who know the real truth. You're part of a brainwashed kook fringe cult.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 14, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > So, after seeing the April 2015 data, all the deniers here have gone into full blubbering meltdown mode. With their eyes all red and weepy, snot dribbling down their faces, they've run to each other for comfort in a big manly group hug. A totally 110% heterosexual manly big group hug, you understand. After they whisper some sweet nothing conspiracies to each other, maybe have a smoke, they come on back, recharged and refreshed.
> ...


You silly little ass, all that was covered in the BEST investigation. And the scientists were shown to be doing their discipline in the best manner possible. And what you are saying is that all the governments on this planet are in on some vast conspiracy. Little tin hat time.


----------



## ChrisL (May 14, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Maybe you should post a link to that . . .


----------



## ChrisL (May 14, 2015)

mamooth said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > You have not addressed my question to you.  You have simply avoided it by trying to put attention elsewhere.
> ...



Why did you put your name in my quote?  Do you not know how to use the quote function?  And I'm supposed to listen to what you have to say on the matter when you cannot even figure out the quote function on a message board?  Good grief!


----------



## ChrisL (May 14, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



The "BEST" investigation huh?  Well, I guess you should be able to link to it for me.  

Now, are you claiming they did not manipulate data or place their equipment in areas that they knew would be hotter than average temperatures?  Is that what you are saying?


----------



## Wyld Kard (May 14, 2015)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Insane crackpot conspiracy theories are all the denier cultists have left to work with to try to deny the scientific evidence supporting AGW/CC, since the evidence of continuing and increasing warming of the planet has become so obvious to everybody who doesn't have their head jammed up their ass.
> ...




You are wrong, you have been wrong, and you will continue on being wrong, it just that you are too ignorant to realize it.  



.


----------



## ChrisL (May 14, 2015)

mamooth said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > You have not addressed my question to you.  You have simply avoided it by trying to put attention elsewhere.
> ...



Another question for you . . . why do you think the republicans/conservatives would deny global warming?  What would they gain from doing that?


----------



## RollingThunder (May 14, 2015)

RollingThunder said:


> Insane crackpot conspiracy theories are all the denier cultists have left to work with to try to deny the scientific evidence supporting AGW/CC, since the evidence of continuing and increasing warming of the planet has become so obvious to everybody who doesn't have their head jammed up their ass.





Wildcard said:


> Really?  What scientific evidence?





RollingThunder said:


> The enormous amounts of scientific evidence that has convinced virtually the entire world scientific community...
> *Climate change: How do we know?*
> NASA
> *Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming*
> *How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?*





Wildcard said:


> Oh you mean all those bullshit lies, and misinformation, and fraudulent science that gullible dumbasses like yourself believe to be true.  That so-called "scientific evidence"?





RollingThunder said:


> As I just said: "_*Insane crackpot conspiracy theories are all the denier cultists have left to work with to try to deny the scientific evidence supporting AGW/CC"*_
> 
> Thanks for so quickly demonstrating that fact, dumbass.





Kosh said:


> Once again the AGW cult shows that their religious propaganda is just that, propaganda not based on any real science..The true deniers of real science are the AGW cult!



LOLOLOLOL......I posted the links to scientific evidence supporting AGW, including some from NASA, but you are such a brainwashed and retarded rightwingnut denier cult troll that you can't recognize actual scientific evidence even when it is shoved in your stupid face, Klod. You are an idiot and a fool, like the other denier cult dingbats.


----------



## ChrisL (May 14, 2015)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Insane crackpot conspiracy theories are all the denier cultists have left to work with to try to deny the scientific evidence supporting AGW/CC, since the evidence of continuing and increasing warming of the planet has become so obvious to everybody who doesn't have their head jammed up their ass.
> ...



Gosh, why such anger?  Can't we have a normal discussion without all the anger please?  If you have some good articles, then just post them and prove your point.  Do you think you would convince people to believe in global warming (man-made that is) with that kind of attitude?  No, people will never listen to you when you come across in such a way.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 14, 2015)

RollingThunder said:


> *Climate change: How do we know?*
> NASA
> 
> *Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming*
> ...





Wildcard said:


> Oh you mean all those bullshit lies, and misinformation, and fraudulent science that gullible dumbasses like yourself believe to be true.  That so-called "scientific evidence"?





RollingThunder said:


> As I just said: "_*Insane crackpot conspiracy theories are all the denier cultists have left to work with to try to deny the scientific evidence supporting AGW/CC"*_
> 
> Thanks for so quickly demonstrating that fact, dumbass.





Wildcard said:


> You are wrong, you have been wrong, and you will continue on being wrong, it just that you are too ignorant to realize it.


LOLOLOLOL......so claims an ignorant retard with his head up his ass and full of crackpot conspiracy theories. You are insanely delusional and you will obviously keep right on being insanely delusional; it is just that you are too crazy and retarded to realize it. The world is laughing at you retarded dupes of the fossil fuel industry.


----------



## Kosh (May 14, 2015)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Insane crackpot conspiracy theories are all the denier cultists have left to work with to try to deny the scientific evidence supporting AGW/CC, since the evidence of continuing and increasing warming of the planet has become so obvious to everybody who doesn't have their head jammed up their ass.
> ...



No you posted AGW cult religious dogma that is not based in science..

Which proves that the AGW cult is against real science.

No where did you post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate..


----------



## Wyld Kard (May 14, 2015)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Insane crackpot conspiracy theories are all the denier cultists have left to work with to try to deny the scientific evidence supporting AGW/CC, since the evidence of continuing and increasing warming of the planet has become so obvious to everybody who doesn't have their head jammed up their ass.
> ...





> I posted the links to scientific evidence supporting AGW


No, all you have been doing is continually posting bullshit and trying to convince others that it's the truth, over and over, just like your other fellow nutjobs have doing.   

You keep on proving what a gullible moron you truly are.


----------



## Wyld Kard (May 14, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





> Gosh, why such anger?



Rolling Blunder is angry because not everyone believes in and accepts the crap that he does.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 14, 2015)

Yep. The only people that accepts that crap is just all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world. But you unlettered morons are so much smarter than all those people.


----------



## ChrisL (May 14, 2015)

Wildcard said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



I'm still waiting for the BEST article.


----------



## ChrisL (May 14, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Yep. The only people that accepts that crap is just all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world. But you unlettered morons are so much smarter than all those people.



But why do they believe it?  Because we all know that government funded studies are not really very good.  They are always going to be biased towards the ones who give them money.  It's their jobs, their livelihoods if they lose their funding.  

Now, why do you believe so strongly that global warming is man made and not just a natural thing that happens  . . . maybe every couple of million years or something? 

Sure, you can go back and look at soil samples from a some time periods, but certainly not ALL of them, so it is certainly not out of the question that global warming could be a natural occurrence.  

Also, you have yet to tell me why you would believe people who would manipulate their data and purposely place their instruments in certain locations in order to achieve certain results.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 14, 2015)

What is this 'we' crap? Got a mouse in your pocket? 

Look, your posts have demonstrated that you are flapping yap with zero research into the subject. So here is a site from the biggest Scientific Organization in the world, the American Institute of Physics;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## Old Rocks (May 14, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


OK, here you go;

Berkeley Earth


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 14, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...



Joe Baton is a fool and a liar... but I think you knew that as there are about 300 papers which show the lag.  this is just more wiki Trash.. The use of a graph which uses 1,000 year plots makes the lag appear to be negligible but it is pure deception.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 14, 2015)

RollingThunder said:


> I started this thread eight months ago and the topic concerned the fact that even then, back in September 2014, climate scientists were predicting that 2014 was very likely to be the next new 'hottest year on record'. Well, 2014 did, in fact, turn out to be the new hottest year on record. And now, so far, 2015 is even hotter, and, with the El Niño in the Pacific, this year is now on track to become next new hottest year on record, further demolishing the idiotic denier cult propaganda memes.
> 
> The scientific fact is that Earth is continuously warming and had been for many decades now. As long as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels remain severely elevated as they are now, less energy will be able to escape away into space than is being received from the sun *every day*, so our planet will continue to warm up a little more every year. Variations in several natural climate factors can, to some degree, either enhance or mask the reflection of the underlying continuous warming trend in the surface air temperature records. Surface air temperatures account for less than 3% of the sun's energy the Earth is receiving, while the oceans are absorbing over 90% of the sun's heat. Even in just the surface air temperature record though, the warming trend is very clear. Good instrumental surface air temperature records extend back to 1880, and much farther in certain specific locales.
> 
> ...



It was only the hottest because of fabrication and out right lying..  The satellites told us the real story..


----------



## RollingThunder (May 14, 2015)

Kosh said:


> No you posted AGW cult religious dogma that is not based in science..
> 
> Which proves that the AGW cult is against real science.
> 
> No where did you post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate..



*Climate change: How do we know?*
NASA

LOLOLOLOLOLOL......and Klod once again demonstrates his utter insanity by calling NASA science "_religious dogma_".....denier cultists are soooooo crazy.....


----------



## mamooth (May 14, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> But why do they believe it?  Because we all know that government funded studies are not really very good.  They are always going to be biased towards the ones who give them money.  It's their jobs, their livelihoods if they lose their funding.



That kind of conspiracy theory is why your cult is laughed at. People with the facts on their side talk about the science. But the facts contradict your cult, leaving you with just conspiracy theories and handwaving.



> Now, why do you believe so strongly that global warming is man made and not just a natural thing that happens  . . . maybe every couple of million years or something



"Natural cycles" isn't a theory, it's an evasion used by people who have no facts on their side. Natural cycles always have causes. Can you name the causes of this current supposed "natural cycle" of warming? No? Then you're just waving your hands around and evading the issue.

We _know_ it's a not a natural cycle.

First, the natural cycle for the past 5,000 years and at least the next 20,000 years is a very slow cooling. Instead, we see a sudden fast warming.

Second, we directly measure the stratospheric cooling, the decrease in outgoing longwave radiation, and the increase in backradiation. There is no "natural cycles" theory of warming that explains those observations. That means all the "natural cycles" theories are wrong. Period. In contrast, AGW theory perfectly explains the observed evidence. Therefore, it is the accepted theory.

What? You mean your cult didn't tell you how the actual physical data flatly contradicts their conspiracy theory? Imagine that. You might want to ask them why they didn't tell you.



> Sure, you can go back and look at soil samples from a some time periods, but certainly not ALL of them, so it is certainly not out of the question that global warming could be a natural occurrence.



Or we can keep directly measuring the evidence that right now says the "natural cycles" theory is crap. And hey, we do do that. Don't worry, you can still retreat back to the "All the data is faked!" conspiracy theory. You'll have lots of company, as all deniers eventually sink to that level.



> Also, you have yet to tell me why you would believe people who would manipulate their data and purposely place their instruments in certain locations in order to achieve certain results.



I wouldn't. What's that got to do with anything?

You're parroting another one of your cult's crazy conspiracy theories. Nobody outside of your cult pays any attention to it. The whole planet is not engaged in a big secret conspiracy against you. You're just babbling nonsense conspiracy theories.


----------



## ChrisL (May 14, 2015)

mamooth said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > But why do they believe it?  Because we all know that government funded studies are not really very good.  They are always going to be biased towards the ones who give them money.  It's their jobs, their livelihoods if they lose their funding.
> ...



Well, first of all, I don't have any cult.  

No, natural cycles are natural processes.  Lol.  

As I said, you can only go back so far.  You do not know what happened before that.  The earth is VERY old, you know.  

Sounds like a lot of mumbo jumbo that really doesn't mean anything.  What physical data are you referring to?  

How is the natural cycles theory crap?  Explain please.  

We?  Are you trying to make yourself out to be a climatologist now?


----------



## mamooth (May 14, 2015)

If you want me to spend long hours tutoring you on the basics, I charge for that. I only work for free for people who have an honest desire to learn.

I will help you out with a website debunking the many, many denier conspiracy theories.

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says

(Yep, I did that deliberately, to make certain heads explode. Cook Derangement Syndrome is hilarious.)


----------



## ChrisL (May 14, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...



Okay, interesting, but I don't see that it really proves anything.  It's a bunch of charts and stuff about how the temperatures have allegedly risen.  It does not address the fact that they have manipulated data or that they have placed their measuring devices in specific areas to create a specific outcome.  

Here is the only statement about that in your link . . . .

"Berkeley Earth also has carefully studied issues raised by skeptics, such as possible biases from urban heating, data selection, poor station quality, and data adjustment. We have demonstrated that these do not unduly bias the results."  

Where have they demonstrated the results?  I don't see any other data related to that.  How did they go about doing this?  What did they study to disprove it.  

Of course if you place a thermometer in the middle of a black top parking lot, your readings are going to be abnormally high, don't you agree with that?


----------



## mamooth (May 14, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Of course if you place a thermometer in the middle of a black top parking lot, your readings are going to be abnormally high, don't you agree with that?



But nobody does that.

So why do you keep telling that lie? Nobody is manipulating data. Only pathologically dishonest conspiracy cultists push that claim. Therefore, you must be such a cultist.

Yes, it is that simple and that obvious. You give your cult affiliation away by always coming back to that lie.


----------



## ChrisL (May 14, 2015)

mamooth said:


> If you want me to spend long hours tutoring you on the basics, I charge for that. I only work for free for people who have an honest desire to learn.
> 
> I will help you out with a website debunking the many, many denier conspiracy theories.
> 
> ...



I don't deny that there is or could be a global warming trend.  I just don't see how anyone, with 100% certainty, could say that it is related to anything we have done.  I believe that I learned before that there actually have been periods in time when the climate has cooled (ice ages) and times when it has warmed up a lot as well.  How do we know for sure that it isn't a trend.  Going back 5000 or even 10,000 years is not very long, relatively speaking.


----------



## ChrisL (May 14, 2015)

mamooth said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Of course if you place a thermometer in the middle of a black top parking lot, your readings are going to be abnormally high, don't you agree with that?
> ...



So that didn't manipulate any data?  Is that your claim?  Even the site the other poster linked to said that they did, but they claim it didn't make a difference.


----------



## ChrisL (May 14, 2015)

mamooth said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Of course if you place a thermometer in the middle of a black top parking lot, your readings are going to be abnormally high, don't you agree with that?
> ...



Your continued silliness in accusing me of being in some sort of "cult" is not going to stop me from asking questions.  Just to let you know.

I'm on to the fact that this is what you do, instead of having an honest discussion or explaining yourself.  You resort to insults in the hopes that you will distract from the questions being asked and the discussion taking place.  Well, it's not going to work.


----------



## mamooth (May 14, 2015)

Do you really think your crybaby act here is anything new? Most deniers try it. They make some crazy unsupported claim and then get all butthurt when called on it.

Your specific claim is that scientists commonly and deliberately placed thermometers in parking lots to raise the temperature. So, support that claim. With sources. And not just a random photo. Show the collections of actual station data reading hot. After all, you say that's what's happening, so there must be data somewhere.

I can, of course, show your claim is a fable. I can show the few "bad" stations did not read hot, as they were corrected for the UHI effect. But for now, I'm having too much fun making you squirm with the horrible, unreasonable request that you back up your bullshit claims. So what lame excuse are you going to come up with to justify not supporting your conspiracy theory?


----------



## Ernie S. (May 15, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Great gig, if you can get it, but my resume is somewhat limited. I've never lost emails, fudged data or denied having sex with Monica Lewinsky.
> ...


I doubt that you can actually hold a conversation with a woman without consulting with Mother Jones.


----------



## Ernie S. (May 15, 2015)

Snipped to eliminate total bullshit.



mamooth said:


> Or we can keep directly measuring the evidence that right now says the "natural cycles" theory is crap. And hey, we do do that.



Natural cycles theory is crap????????






What do you see here every 80 or 90 thousand years? Where are we now? What do you expect will happen NATURALLY in about 50,000 years?


----------



## Kosh (May 15, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> Snipped to eliminate total bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Have to add this:


----------



## RollingThunder (May 15, 2015)

Getting back to the topic of the thread, here's more evidence of the continuing and accelerating warming of the Earth as the still rising carbon dioxide levels trap more and more of the sun's energy, and global warming continues and accelerates, making the beginning of this year the hottest on record. And that's just the heat increasing in the atmosphere. The oceans are absorbing over 90% of the excess heat that is being retained while the atmosphere has only been taking in about 3%.

*Earth Hits New Milestone: 2015 Marks Warmest January to March On Record*
weather.com
By Jon Erdman
Published Apr 20 2015
*The first three months of 2015 have been the warmest January-March on record for the globe, according to three separate analyses released this week.

NOAA's state of the climate report released Friday says January-March 2015 topped the previous record warm first quarter of any year set in 2002.

NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies also found January-March to be record warm for the globe, with a surface temperature anomaly of 7.9 degrees Celsius, relative to the 1951-1980 average, topping the previous record from 2002 of 7.7 degrees Celsius. Both NOAA and NASA's global temperature records date to 1880. 

March 2015 was the warmest March globally, as well, according to NOAA. Eight of the past 12 months -- March, December, October, September, August, June, May and April -- have either tied or set new global warm records for their respective months.

NOAA said only two other months -- February 1998 and January 2007 -- had higher global temperature anomalies for their respective months than March 2015.

An analysis from the Japan Meteorological Agency found March 2015 to be the warmest in their dataset dating to 1891. Four of the five warmest Marches in JMA records have occurred this century, including 2010 (second warmest), 2002 (third warmest) and 2014 (fifth warmest). 

The first three months of 2015 were much warmer than average over a vast extent of Europe and Asia, particularly from Scandinavia and eastern Europe across much of Russia, as well as a swath of western Canada and the western United States, including Alaska. 

Seven western U.S. states set their record warmest January-March periods, according to NOAA.

One of the few consistently cold spots has been eastern Canada and the northeastern quarter of the United States. New York and Vermont shivered through their coldest January-March on record in 2015. *


----------



## jc456 (May 15, 2015)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Insane crackpot conspiracy theories are all the denier cultists have left to work with to try to deny the scientific evidence supporting AGW/CC, since the evidence of continuing and increasing warming of the planet has become so obvious to everybody who doesn't have their head jammed up their ass.
> ...


now that is a real scientific response.  just show us how that is at all possible? Scientifically!


----------



## jc456 (May 15, 2015)

RollingThunder said:


> Getting back to the topic of the thread, here's more evidence of the continuing and accelerating warming of the Earth as the still rising carbon dioxide levels trap more and more of the sun's energy, and global warming continues and accelerates, making the beginning of this year the hottest on record. And that's just the heat increasing in the atmosphere. The oceans are absorbing over 90% of the excess heat that is being retained while the atmosphere has only been taking in about 3%.
> 
> *Earth Hits New Milestone: 2015 Marks Warmest January to March On Record*
> weather.com
> ...


you do know that the northern hemisphere has always been the coldest area of the globe outside the Antarctic, right?

Edit:  And, the area of cold in the Antarctic is growing.  Ask the scientist who keep getting caught in ice trying to get to their huts.  Curious, have you seen that yet?  They are thinking of moving the huts because it is getting more cold?  Do.  you. know. this?


----------



## jc456 (May 15, 2015)

mamooth said:


> > Well, if they change and manipulate data and if they place their temperature measuring equipment in areas that tend to be hotter (because of black top or perhaps on the roof of a building), then why should they be taken seriously? Also, the fact that they are funded by the government and probably have a self interest in keeping their jobs?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


which data is it that you believe is being manipulated?


----------



## mamooth (May 15, 2015)

Ernie S. said:


> Natural cycles theory is crap????????



Being that it's contradicted by the observed data, the theory that natural cycles cause the current warming clearly is crap.



> What do you see here every 80 or 90 thousand years? Where are we now? What do you expect will happen NATURALLY in about 50,000 years?



So you show natural cycles that happen without human intervention, and then imply the same must happen with human intervention, and that humans can't affect it at all.

According to such logic, since forest fires used to always have natural causes, it not not possible to humans to change the natural order and cause forest fires.

Such deficient logic is kind of expected. After all, if a person possesses common sense, they don't get sucked into the denier cult.


----------



## jc456 (May 15, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. Kosh, a dumb ass like you knows enough to even understand a little of what the scientists are doing? Not at all. All you are interested in is preserving your ignorance.


so curious, what is it you believe we reap rewards from? What is it we're after?  Do you even have an answer?


----------



## mamooth (May 15, 2015)

jc456 said:


> you do know that the northern hemisphere has always been the coldest area of the globe outside the Antarctic, right?



Wow. The stupid, it burns us.



> Edit:  And, the area of cold in the Antarctic is growing.  Ask the scientist who keep getting caught in ice trying to get to their huts.  Curious, have you seen that yet?  They are thinking of moving the huts because it is getting more cold?  Do.  you. know. this?



You're just pulling stupid shit out of your ass. You know, the place where all your data originates. Please stop faking data, fraudster.


----------



## jc456 (May 15, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Natural cycles theory is crap????????
> ...


----------



## mamooth (May 15, 2015)

jc456 said:


> so curious, what is it you believe we reap rewards from? What is it we're after?  Do you even have an answer?



I've already pointed out that for you, getting the attention you so desperately seek fis the payoff.

For other deniers, cult loyalty to their right wing fringe political fruitloop cult is the main driving force.

And jc? Find your balls and address what people say, instead of evading by posting pictures. You're not the most gutless lying crybaby on the internet, but you're up there. Try doing something other than squealing in chubby metrosexual rage, pissing yourself and running.

Start with this. Do you agree with Ernie's fuktard logic that humans can't cause forest fires because nature-caused forest fires were previously the natural cycle?


----------



## jc456 (May 15, 2015)

mamooth said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > You have not addressed my question to you.  You have simply avoided it by trying to put attention elsewhere.
> ...


hahahahahhahahahhaha now you're answering yourself and telling yourself you're full of it.  LOMFL


----------



## jc456 (May 15, 2015)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > so curious, what is it you believe we reap rewards from? What is it we're after?  Do you even have an answer?
> ...


----------



## jc456 (May 15, 2015)

Wildcard said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


still not sure what he believes we gain out of not believing those lies.  I wish for once someone would post that up.

It isn't financial, the greatest motivating influence in the world, not power, next greatest.  So what is it, that we can possibly achieve to simply state our position?


----------



## mamooth (May 15, 2015)

jc, stop trolling.

You are not a special little snowflake who gets to break board rules just because he wants attention. Grow the fuck up.

Seriously, why do you act like such a child?

And to keep things on topic, why did you say something this stupid?



> you do know that the northern hemisphere has always been the coldest area of the globe outside the Antarctic, right?



Exactly what did you mean by uttering a statement that dumb?

And do you agree with Ernie's idiot claim that humans can't change natural cycles? Yes or no?


----------



## jc456 (May 15, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> What is this 'we' crap? Got a mouse in your pocket?
> 
> Look, your posts have demonstrated that you are flapping yap with zero research into the subject. So here is a site from the biggest Scientific Organization in the world, the American Institute of Physics;
> 
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


ahhh here it is again.  Post 1001 of the failed and debunked article.  Herr Koch lives!!!!! Thanks!!


----------



## jc456 (May 15, 2015)

mamooth said:


> jc, stop trolling.
> 
> You are not a special little snowflake who gets to break board rules just because he wants attention. Grow the fuck up.
> 
> Seriously, why do you act like such a child?


troll?  why don't you post the evidence then that supports your position instead of posting whiny crap every hour.  Just one piece of evidence that120 PPM does anything to temperatures.  One, please, if you don't then it is again you who is the actual troll!!!


----------



## jc456 (May 15, 2015)

RollingThunder said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > No you posted AGW cult religious dogma that is not based in science..
> ...


you mean the space agency?  Right!!!!!


----------



## Kosh (May 15, 2015)

mamooth said:


> jc, stop trolling.
> 
> You are not a special little snowflake who gets to break board rules just because he wants attention. Grow the fuck up.
> 
> ...



The irony impaired AGW cult and their comments..


----------



## jc456 (May 15, 2015)

mamooth said:


> If you want me to spend long hours tutoring you on the basics, I charge for that. I only work for free for people who have an honest desire to learn.
> 
> I will help you out with a website debunking the many, many denier conspiracy theories.
> 
> ...


so when are you going to open up the books and start learning so that you can achieve what you just stated?  where is that 120 PPM CO2 evidence.  Teach me!!!


----------



## jc456 (May 15, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Mantooth caught by another.  LOL  holy crap I can't stop laughing.


----------



## jc456 (May 15, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Do you really think your crybaby act here is anything new? Most deniers try it. They make some crazy unsupported claim and then get all butthurt when called on it.
> 
> Your specific claim is that scientists commonly and deliberately placed thermometers in parking lots to raise the temperature. So, support that claim. With sources. And not just a random photo. Show the collections of actual station data reading hot. After all, you say that's what's happening, so there must be data somewhere.
> 
> I can, of course, show your claim is a fable. I can show the few "bad" stations did not read hot, as they were corrected for the UHI effect. But for now, I'm having too much fun making you squirm with the horrible, unreasonable request that you back up your bullshit claims. So what lame excuse are you going to come up with to justify not supporting your conspiracy theory?


go for it show us.  walk the walk tooth.  Post up that there evidence you got.  The one I asked for.  You're making the statement you have it.  Post it. or are you shy and whiny?


----------



## jc456 (May 15, 2015)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > you do know that the northern hemisphere has always been the coldest area of the globe outside the Antarctic, right?
> ...


read it and weep,  


From Monday's Daily Caller:

"Antarctic Ice So Thick Scientists Struggle Getting There May 11, 2015 Source: The Daily Callerby: Michael Bastasch

Scientists are struggling to stage expeditions to the South Pole because Antarctica’s sea ice has been growing rapidly and hit record high levels.

The UK Guardian reports 50 scientists have gathered in Tasmania to discuss more accurate ways to predict Antarctic sea ice levels so researchers don’t get stuck in ice pack when traveling southward.

“It’s quite hard to forecast but whatever effort we put into improving our ability to forecast sea ice will ultimately pay dividends in terms of savings for national programs,” Tony Worby, head of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, told the Guardian.

Last year, ships “couldn’t get anywhere near” the Australian Antarctic Division’s research site on Antarctica, reports The Guardian. Source: The Daily Caller"

no say you're sorry!!!!


----------



## jc456 (May 15, 2015)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > so curious, what is it you believe we reap rewards from? What is it we're after?  Do you even have an answer?
> ...


tooth, say something and I will.  post your evidence of the 120 PPM of CO2 added to the atmosphere.  Why is it you consistently avoid that response?  What are you afraid of?  I already know it doesn't exist.  But you won't make that statement.  Why not?  I know, you then become exposed for talking out your arse.

BTW I believe forest fires are started by  spark and fire.


----------



## jc456 (May 15, 2015)

mamooth said:


> jc, stop trolling.
> 
> You are not a special little snowflake who gets to break board rules just because he wants attention. Grow the fuck up.
> 
> ...


no I don't believe humans can.  And, you have no evidence to suggest humans do.

So follow your own advice and stop trolling me.


----------



## mamooth (May 15, 2015)

That above was reported for spamming and trolling. jc, I warned you. I think everyone here has had enough of your shit, and I encourage everyone to report it. This is a zone 3 forum, but there are still limits on spamming and trolling, and you're way over them.



jc456 said:


> still not sure what he believes we gain out of not believing those lies.  I wish for once someone would post that up.



I did. You ignored it and posted crickets. That was cowardice above and beyond the call on your part.

I'm going to do what you hate most. I'm going to keep trying to discuss science with you. That means you're going to keep screaming, wetting yourself and running, flinging out some bizarre deflections to cover your retreat. That's the "natural cycle" here. We'll start with your more recent stupid episodes, since you've given us too much total stupid here to handle in even a hundred posts.

So, you agree with Ernie's claim that humans can't affect natural cycles, using your usual "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" as justification. Does that mean you think humans can't cause forest fires?

How do you explain the directly observed stratospheric cooling, decrease in outgoing longwave radiation, and increase in backradiation, all which show humans _are_ changing the natural cycles? Not to mention the sudden temperature increase, even though the natural cycle should have the earth slowly cooling.

Exactly what did you mean by "you do know that the northern hemisphere has always been the coldest area of the globe outside the Antarctic, right?". Given the average temperature of the northern hemisphere is always warmer than the average temperature of the southern hemisphere, it seems quite a stupid thing to say. Did you cult not inform you of that fact?

Why did you tell us a weird story that "scientists are moving their huts because Antarctica is colder"?

Why are you confusing ice levels with temperature? Air temperature is just one factor affecting sea ice levels. Air temperatures near Antarctica have gone up as ice levels have gone up. Are you claiming that the rising air temperatures indicate cooling?

Again, I know what you hope to gain here. Attention. It goes along with your histrionic personality disorder. For you, the attention you get is the desired ends. In your mind, there's no such thing as bad attention, so you don't care how stupid you have to act to get the attention. With you, as with most deniers, the way forward is to ignore the tantrums, and to just keep bringing you back to the science you're trying to run from.


----------



## jc456 (May 15, 2015)

mamooth said:


> That above was reported for spamming and trolling. jc, I warned you. I think everyone here has had enough of your shit, and I encourage everyone to report it. This is a zone 3 forum, but there are still limits on spamming and trolling, and you're way over them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


give me a post number where you answered my question.


----------



## mamooth (May 15, 2015)

All your questions were directly answered many times by many people on many past threads.

And everyone has learned not to play your dishonest games. We could spend time listing the evidence yet another time, and you'd make up the same bizarre stories about why it doesn't count.

Congratulations. Everyone, on all sides, considers you to be a complete waste of time.


----------



## jc456 (May 15, 2015)

mamooth said:


> All your questions were directly answered many times by many people on many past threads.
> 
> And everyone has learned not to play your dishonest games. We could spend time listing the evidence yet another time, and you'd make up the same bizarre stories about why it doesn't count.
> 
> Congratulations. Everyone, on all sides, considers you to be a complete waste of time.


so you can't tell me in this thread, the post where you answered me?  Really, so you really didn't so you are now a liar.


----------



## jc456 (May 15, 2015)

mamooth said:


> All your questions were directly answered many times by many people on many past threads.
> 
> And everyone has learned not to play your dishonest games. We could spend time listing the evidence yet another time, and you'd make up the same bizarre stories about why it doesn't count.
> 
> Congratulations. Everyone, on all sides, considers you to be a complete waste of time.


here from the Geologist thread from SSDD:


SSDD said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


----------



## RollingThunder (May 15, 2015)

Getting back to the scientific facts that the denier cult crazies can't handle.....you'll note that this article is from a little over a year ago....since 2014 subsequenty became the new hottest year on record, the latest, more accurate title to the article would be, at this point in time, that *'14 of 15 Hottest Years on Record All Occured in 21st Century'*.

*13 of 14 Hottest Years on Record All Occurred in 21st Century *
The Weather Channel
By Terrell Johnson
Published Mar 24, 2014
weather.com
*Call it climate change, global warming or even global "weirding," 2013 was the planet's sixth hottest year on record, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) announced Monday in a report that detailed a litany of historic weather events around the world like Typhoon Haiyan, Cyclone Phailin and Australia's record-breaking heat wave.*

*The average temperature worldwide last year – global land and ocean surface temperatures – was 58.1°F, about 0.9°F above the 1961-1990 average and about 0.05°F above the 2001-2010 decadal average, the WMO said in the report.*

*The organization's Annual Statement on the Status of the Climate showed also that despite the oft-reported global warming "hiatus," 13 of the 14 warmest years in recorded weather history have all occurred in the opening years of the 21st century.*

*Each of the last three decades has been warmer than the previous one, the report adds, and the 2001 to 2010 decade is the warmest in history so far.*

*“There is no standstill in global warming,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud, drawing a distinction between the relatively slow rise in average land surface temperatures since the late 1990s and other signs of planetary warming, including the dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice and glacial ice around the world.*

*"More than 90 percent of the excess energy trapped by greenhouse gases is stored in the oceans," where warming has accelerated and at lower depths, he added. "Levels of these greenhouse gases are at record levels, meaning that our atmosphere and oceans will continue to warm for centuries to come."*

*While 2013 brought unusually cool summer temperatures to much of the eastern half of the United States, and one of the quietest Atlantic hurricane seasons in recent memory, the year elsewhere around the world brought many events that "we would expect as a result of human-induced climate change," said Jarraud.*

*"We saw heavier precipitation, more intense heat, and more damage from storm surges and coastal flooding as a result of sea level rise, as Typhoon Haiyan so tragically demonstrated in the Philippines," he added.*

*Temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere were very warm throughout the year, the report notes, evidenced by Australia's record heat as well as the warmth in New Zealand and Argentina, both of which experienced near-record warm years.*

*Searing droughts occurred in northwestern Brazil – that region's worst in 50 years – as well as in southern China and parts of Africa, while heavy rains and severe floods swept through the India-Nepal border region as well as Sudan and Somalia.*

*Extreme precipitation also led to severe floods in Europe, especially in the Alpine regions of Austria, Germany, Poland, Switzerland and the Czech Republic.*

*Australia's bout with record-breaking heat and wildfires is examined in a peer-reviewed case study within the report, which investigated whether that country's extreme summer temperatures were caused by man-made climate change.*

*By comparing climate model simulations – with and without factors influenced by human causes, such as the buildup of industrial-era greenhouse gas emissions – the study found that Australia's summer of 2012-2013 was "about five times as likely as a result of human-induced influence on climate," it said.*

*“The record hot calendar year of 2013 would have been virtually impossible without human contributions of heat-trapping gases, illustrating that some extreme events are becoming much more likely due to climate change,” the study concluded.*

*See the full report at the World Meteorological Organization.*


*****


----------



## jc456 (May 15, 2015)

RollingThunder said:


> Getting back to the scientific facts that the denier cult crazies can't handle.....you'll note that this article is from a little over a year ago....since 2014 subsequenty became the new hottest year on record, the latest, more accurate title to the article would be, at this point in time, that *'14 of 15 Hottest Years on Record All Occured in 21st Century'*.
> 
> *13 of 14 Hottest Years on Record All Occurred in 21st Century *
> The Weather Channel
> ...


yep when a group wants to advertize their belief and the observed doesn't follow, one must then fudge all the data to make the data fall in line.  hahahahhhahahahahhahhahaa.

As I've already stated, the groups admit it.

Edit:

NOAA link:

Climate Reconstruction National Climatic Data Center NCDC


----------



## jc456 (May 15, 2015)

hey thunder, one more link:

the telegraph:

Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures - Telegraph


----------



## jc456 (May 15, 2015)

so in other words one can just make up global warming stats and say it's official and then tell everyone to post the notices up!  can you say LOL?  hahahahahahhahahahahahahaha


----------



## jc456 (May 15, 2015)

one more: 
*The International Temperature Data Review Project*

The International Temperature Data Review Project


----------



## RollingThunder (May 15, 2015)

jc456 said:


> hey thunder, one more link:
> the telegraph: Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures - Telegraph



LOLOLOLOL......the last gasp of the denier cult trolls....a denier cult organization, with a record of promoting lies and fraudulent misinformation, recruits some denier cult dingbats to challenge the world scientific community, in the service of their fossil fuel industry paymasters. Only the denier cult retards take this seriously.

*Leading group of climate change deniers accused of creating 'fake controversy' over claims global temperature data may be inaccurate*
The Independent
BEN TUFFT
Sunday 26 April 2015
*The UK’s most prominent climate change denial group is launching an inquiry into the integrity of global surface temperature records.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), established by notable climate-change sceptic Lord Lawson, announced an international team of “eminent climatologists, physicists and statisticians” would investigate the reliability of the current data.

Professor Terence Kealey, the former vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham, has been appointed chair of the international temperature data review project.

Professor Kealey studied medicine at Oxford University before lecturing on clinical biochemistry, which is primarily concerned with the analysis of bodily fluids, at Cambridge University. It is unclear what experience he has in the field of climate change.

The other five commissioners of the data review project: Petr Chylek, Richard McNider, Roman Mureika, Roger A Pielke Sr and William van Winjngaarden are all associated with North American universities.

According to the GWPF, questions have been raised about the reliability of temperature data and the extent to which recordings may have been adjusted after they were collected.

The group claims the inquiry will “review the technical challenges in accurately measuring surface temperature, and will assess the extent of adjustments to the data, their integrity and whether they tend to increase or decrease the warming trend”.

On launching the inquiry Professor Kealey said: “Many people have found the extent of adjustments to the data surprising. While we believe that the 20th century warming is real, we are concerned by claims that the actual trend is different from – or less certain than – has been suggested.”

Bob Ward, policy and research director at the Grantham Institute of climate change and the environment, told The Independent: “I think this is a very obvious attempt to create a fake controversy over the global temperature record ahead of the [UN Climate Change] Paris summit."

“The only purpose of this review is to cast doubt on the science. It is a political move, not a serious scientific one.”

The GWPF has previously been subject to complaints that it has misled the public over climate change and used factually inaccurate material “as part of its campaign against climate policies in the UK and overseas”.

Former chancellor, Lord Lawson, set up the GWPF in 2009. His book on the subject of climate change, titled An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming, was labelled “misleading” by Sir John Houghton, a former co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

While Bob Watson, another former head of the IPCC, said that Lord Lawson did not understand “the current scientific and economic debate”.*


----------



## Kosh (May 15, 2015)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > hey thunder, one more link:
> ...



This should make you happy:

Claim Climate Change will make Californian Marijuana more potent Watts Up With That


----------



## RollingThunder (May 15, 2015)

Kosh said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



And the Klod posts more irrelevant off-topic nonsense from a denier cult blog......as usual....


----------



## ChrisL (May 15, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Do you really think your crybaby act here is anything new? Most deniers try it. They make some crazy unsupported claim and then get all butthurt when called on it.
> 
> Your specific claim is that scientists commonly and deliberately placed thermometers in parking lots to raise the temperature. So, support that claim. With sources. And not just a random photo. Show the collections of actual station data reading hot. After all, you say that's what's happening, so there must be data somewhere.
> 
> I can, of course, show your claim is a fable. I can show the few "bad" stations did not read hot, as they were corrected for the UHI effect. But for now, I'm having too much fun making you squirm with the horrible, unreasonable request that you back up your bullshit claims. So what lame excuse are you going to come up with to justify not supporting your conspiracy theory?



U.S. Agencies Accused of Fudging Data to Show Global Warming

Breaking New Climate Data Rigging Scandal Rocks US Government Principia Scientific Intl


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 16, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Do you really think your crybaby act here is anything new? Most deniers try it. They make some crazy unsupported claim and then get all butthurt when called on it.
> 
> Your specific claim is that scientists commonly and deliberately placed thermometers in parking lots to raise the temperature. So, support that claim. With sources. And not just a random photo. Show the collections of actual station data reading hot. After all, you say that's what's happening, so there must be data somewhere.
> 
> I can, of course, show your claim is a fable. I can show the few "bad" stations did not read hot, as they were corrected for the UHI effect. But for now, I'm having too much fun making you squirm with the horrible, unreasonable request that you back up your bullshit claims. So what lame excuse are you going to come up with to justify not supporting your conspiracy theory?




NOAA/GISS intentionally violate their own policies as to station placement and upkeep. Your position is so indefensible it is laughable.  The facts are easily found and displayed..

Home

Worse still is the paper which has been published and peer reviewed shows BEST's assumption of "no bias" to be baseless and in fact a contrived lie to forward their own agenda.

Snagletooth fails again..


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 16, 2015)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > hey thunder, one more link:
> ...




Ben Tuffet?   Really?  You used this left wing radical bull shit alarmist as a source?  Of Course he does fit right in with your trollish beliefs, name calling, unscientific drivel and your cult like worship of CO2..


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Do you really think your crybaby act here is anything new? Most deniers try it. They make some crazy unsupported claim and then get all butthurt when called on it.
> ...


Why don't you just post from the Weekly World. Same credibility level.


----------



## ChrisL (May 16, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



How so? I posted two articles from two different sources.  Which source do you have an issue with and why?  Did you read them?  If so, you should be able to tell me which parts of the article you are in disagreement with.


----------



## ChrisL (May 16, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Really, if anything, it seems as if the global warming alarmists are the ones who belong to a cult.  And an angry cult at that.  Don't you dare question global warming!


----------



## ChrisL (May 16, 2015)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > hey thunder, one more link:
> ...



How is it a "cult" to deny something?  I think you've got it backwards buddy.  It's you global warming alarmists who seem most cult-like.  You even get angry whenever a person asks questions.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 16, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


  Read my post one more time.. I was responding to a poor choice by an alarmist....  Not you....


----------



## ChrisL (May 16, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Oops, sorry.


----------



## ChrisL (May 16, 2015)

Before we know it, they're going to make global warming shrines to please the global warming gods.  Oh, they already make sacrifices in the form of carbon credits!  Lol!


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 16, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Before we know it, they're going to make global warming shrines to please the global warming gods.  Oh, they already make sacrifices in the form of carbon credits!  Lol!



They are kind of like indulgences once sold by the Catholic Church.  Worthless in every respect.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 17, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Before we know it, they're going to make global warming shrines to please the global warming gods.  Oh, they already make sacrifices in the form of carbon credits!  Lol!


Now aren't you the silly ass. Well, maybe when you leave adolescence, you will learn to do a minimal amount of research before flapping yap and making an ass of yourself.


----------



## ChrisL (May 18, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Before we know it, they're going to make global warming shrines to please the global warming gods.  Oh, they already make sacrifices in the form of carbon credits!  Lol!
> ...



Sorry, but I did, Mr. Cultist.  I also posted some links.


----------



## ChrisL (May 18, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Before we know it, they're going to make global warming shrines to please the global warming gods.  Oh, they already make sacrifices in the form of carbon credits!  Lol!
> ...



Especially since some of the biggest polluters are not buying into it, and they also give out waivers!  It's all a money making scheme, if you ask me.


----------

