2009 second warmest year on record

[CrusaderFrank]

NOAA confirms what we knew all along: it's that deadly H2O

"A 10 percent drop in water vapor ten miles above Earth’s surface has had a big impact on global warming, say researchers in a study published online January 28 in the journal Science. The findings might help explain why global surface temperatures have not risen as fast in the last ten years as they did in the 1980s and 1990s"

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Stratospheric Water Vapor is a Global Warming Wild Card

This is what kept the Warmers up at night, this is why they tried to hide the decline

 

[Oddball]

It's those damned clouds!

We absolutely MUST concoct a tax scheme to wipe out those planet-roasting threats to humanity, before the polar bears are all killed!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's those damned clouds!

We absolutely MUST concoct a tax scheme to wipe out those planet-roasting threats to humanity, before the polar bears are all killed!

Save the planet, stop bathing!!

 

[Liability]

Well, there you go again, putting your foot in your mouth. First you CON$ claim you have been denied access to the data, so if you have no data, HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY KNOW IT WAS TAMPERED WITH??????????
Just like you are either lying about cooling for the last 11 years or you are lying about warming caused CO2 to rise, you are either lying about your access to the data or you are lying about the data being tampered with.
Which lie is it??????????

You lying Faithers need to buy a clue.

We know it was tampered with, you silly asshat, because you guys fucked up and revealed as much.

I haven't lied at all, as you knew when you lied and falsely made that absurd claim.

You FAITHERS take it as an article of FAITH that MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING exists and was caused by the CO2 humankind pumped into the Earth's atmosphere. And if the weather has gotten warmer, you idiots proceed to "discover" that it could only be because of that CO2 "we" all pumped into the atmosphere.

It never dawns on you idiot FAITHERS -- you liars -- that MAYBE you have fucked up and confused cause and effect.

And when the prospect gets raised that your FAITH is not based on good science, you skew the data, suppress the evidence that SHOULD cause you assholes to rethink your stupid positions. and then protest when your behavior is exposed.

Fuck off, you dishonest scumbag FAITHERS. IF I want to invest my time in some religion, I'll pick mine. It certainly won't be the imbecilic crap you guys worship.

My, such an erudite post. It really presents the case for denial of global warming well.

In fact, it is the summation of all the denialist posts.

Thank You, Liberty for doing it so well.

Well, douchey, since it was me, not Liberty, who made the comments to which you seemingly take exception, perhaps you'd be better off directing your limp notion of sarcasm towards me.

You AGW Faithers have no credibility. Your suppression of data has that effect on you guys.

Take it up with East Anglia.

Your inability to defend the suppression and destruction of the (alleged) "data" you guys have such FAITH in is quite telling.

And the tale it tells about you AGW Faithers is very amusing.

 

[Old Rocks]

Then why not mandate smaller vehicles?

Because there are people that need larger vehicles.

Why not enforce a 55mph speed limit with vehicles optimised for fuel efficiency at said limit?

Ever drive from Oregon the North Dakota?

Why not tell people that they cannot set their thermostats above 60 when heating or below 80 when cooling?

Why not charge the real price of the coal? The cost of the environmental pollution. The medical cost of the asthma and other respitory illnesses? Then ecourage people the generate their own power.

Why not ration Gasoline, Electricity, and everything else.

We do that already. It is called market pricing.

At some point you would effectively start limitting emissions.

Why not an effective energy policy like Germany? Why should we have the most advanced solar manufacturer, First Solar, building their biggest and most modern plants in Germany because we have no real energy policy?

The current steps are hapazard and ineffective, but one must expect that because politicians are renowned for their lack of scientific understanding.

Now, unfortunetly, that is true. And true of the average American.

Unfortunately for AGW folks the data is moderately inconclusive.

What is inconclusive about the data? That CO2 is a major greenhouse gas? That was established in 1858.

The scientific community established that we are the cause of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere in 1957.

What is inconclusive about the fact that the ice caps are melting? What is inconclusive about the alpine glaciers melting? What is inconclusive in the melting of the Permafrost?

And what is inconclusive about the fact that the worst predictions of the real climatologists were far too optimistic? Nobody predicted the outgassing of the clathrates would begin in 2008. No one predicted the loss in volume and area of North Polar Ice Cap in the last 5 years.


As to why the icecaps might melt - particulate carbon trapped in the icesheets exacerbated by a slight rise in temperatures, raised the surface temperature of the ice.

Slight rise in temperature? 2 to 5 degrees over the area of the Arctic is not a slight rise in temperature.
As the ice melted the carbon, accumulated over the century of the early industrial revolution, kept sinking lower and foming a sunlight trap on ethe ice itself. Now witht he ice melted, the caps can form again without so many the carbon particles. Which is exactly what seems to be happening.

No, that is not at all what is happening. Right now, the area of the North Polar Ice Cap is right now 12% lower than it was last year at this time.

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

So, just to be clear; despite You being absolutely convinced man-made global warming is real, YOUrefuse to do anything which inconveniences YOU
Wereas I, despite bing sceptical DO take a personal responsibility and voluntarily make changes, inconvenient changes, to my lifestyle.
That sounds about par for the course - Hypocrisy from a Warmer.

If I have a vehicle that is driven by electricity, which I produce myself, it has no carbon footprint, no matter what it's size.

A Tesla roadster, at 120 mph, produces no GHGs.

Windmills, geo-thermal, nuclear, and solar, produce no GHGs as they produce power.

You are putting change that would aid the situation in the most distasteful context, rather than pointing out that what is really needed is power that does not produce greenhouse gases, and creating consumers who are also producers of electricity.

What I find inconveniant is supporting the petro-dictators around the world, while our nation is bled white by this outflow of national treasure. What I find inconveniant is spending trillions to gaurentee that the shipping lanes are open in the mid-East while the people whose profits we are protecting give money to the people that brought down the towers on 9-11.

If we had to pay the true cost of fossil fuel at the pumps and in the electric bill, we would have switched to real alternatives 30 years ago. We are artificially supporting the profits of the very people that seek our demise as a nation.

 

[Big Fitz]

Apparently nobody's heard of Lemarkian Genetics here but me. Hmmmm.

 

[Liability]

Apparently nobody's heard of Lemarkian Genetics here but me. Hmmmm.

I had heard of it, but not enough to grasp it (and never bothered to look it up before, either).

Now that I have looked it up, it seems unlikely to me.

If I grasp the theory correctly, it holds that we can acquire certain traits over our individual lifetimes and then directly pass those traits on to our offspring.

If I work out real hard and develop big biceps, my kids have a chance of inheriting that big bicep trait.

By contrast, Darwinianism might say that to the extent having powerful arms helped individuals within a species survive -- then only those with big biceps would end up reproducing and eventually the genetic traits associated with the folks who developed bigger biceps would be passed along, pretty much exclusively since the other folks wouldn't have survived long enough to keep passing their non-big bicep genes along.

 

[Charles Stucker]

No, that is not at all what is happening. Right now, the area of the North Polar Ice Cap is right now 12% lower than it was last year at this time.

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

You misread that graph, hardly surprising in someone with such a limitted ability to understand science.
The 12.277 is millions of square miles of Ice, not some percent "red"
Looking back exactly one year shows roughly 11.8 (upper estimate, as the chart is extremely steep, the lower estimate might distress you) so in TRUTH I am right - the ice does seem to be making a comeback.
Before you blast others understanding of science perhaps you should learn enough to actually understand the science you read.

 

[saveliberty]

No, that is not at all what is happening. Right now, the area of the North Polar Ice Cap is right now 12% lower than it was last year at this time.

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

You misread that graph, hardly surprising in someone with such a limitted ability to understand science.
The 12.277 is millions of square miles of Ice, not some percent "red"
Looking back exactly one year shows roughly 11.8 (upper estimate, as the chart is extremely steep, the lower estimate might distress you) so in TRUTH I am right - the ice does seem to be making a comeback.
Before you blast others understanding of science perhaps you should learn enough to actually understand the science you read.

Charles,

You can enlarge the graph to get better detail. It appears to me the ice is less this year. Approximately 13.7m then to 12.3m now. That would make Old Rocks just about right. There is an error on his part. This graph represents northern hemosphere sea ice and not the northern hemsphere ice caps in total.

Perhaps this information will be more helpful:

http://www.sciencepoles.org/news/news_detail/warm_arctic_cold_northern_hemisphere/

Temperatures in the Arctic have skyrocketed to unusually high levels while much of the Northern Hemisphere has been experiencing frigid temperatures in the past few weeks. While one may be prone to blame global warming, scientists say this unusual pattern is part of natural variability, caused by a large area of high pressure over the Arctic and a large area of low pressure at the mid-latitudes.

While these areas of differing air pressure should normally mix in a natural Arctic oscillation, they have remained stationary in what is known as a negative phase of the oscillation (a positive phase would see low pressure over the Arctic and high pressure over the mid latitudes). December 2009 saw the most extreme negative phase seen since modern record-keeping began in 1950.

The negative phase appears to be in the process of weakening as both pressure areas have started to shift.

Average Arctic temperatures have been 5.6°C to 8.4°C above normal, and the extent of Arctic sea ice at the end of December remained some 920,000 km² below the December average for the period 1979 - 2000, although it was greater than the extent recorded in December 2006.

 

[Old Rocks]

Apparently nobody's heard of Lemarkian Genetics here but me. Hmmmm.

Hmmm...., yourself. Has nothing at all to do with the science of global warming.

And every non-communist nation in the world stated that Lamarkian genetics were pure bunkem.

Now what scientific society in any nation is stating that AGW is bunkem. The only people stating that are the ignoramouses on this board, charlatans like Monkten, and whore like Inhofe.

 

[Old Rocks]

Liberty, if you wish to see several graphs on this and the southern hemisphere also, go here;

Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today

 

[Big Fitz]

Apparently nobody's heard of Lemarkian Genetics here but me. Hmmmm.

I had heard of it, but not enough to grasp it (and never bothered to look it up before, either).

Now that I have looked it up, it seems unlikely to me.

If I grasp the theory correctly, it holds that we can acquire certain traits over our individual lifetimes and then directly pass those traits on to our offspring.

If I work out real hard and develop big biceps, my kids have a chance of inheriting that big bicep trait.

By contrast, Darwinianism might say that to the extent having powerful arms helped individuals within a species survive -- then only those with big biceps would end up reproducing and eventually the genetic traits associated with the folks who developed bigger biceps would be passed along, pretty much exclusively since the other folks wouldn't have survived long enough to keep passing their non-big bicep genes along.

Exactly! It's a false road of science abandoned when it flat out did not match up with reality. That's why I bring it up. AGW is a false road of statistical manipulation in science that will ultimately end once exposed to TRUE peer review, not some nudge nudge wink wink bullshit review Ole Crocks believes is true.

Hmmm...., yourself. Has nothing at all to do with the science of global warming.

And every non-communist nation in the world stated that Lamarkian genetics were pure bunkem.

Now what scientific society in any nation is stating that AGW is bunkem. The only people stating that are the ignoramouses on this board, charlatans like Monkten, and whore like Inhofe.

Ole Crocks, your ignorance is not your fault, but your stupidity is.

Thousands of scientists and a few governments too now say it is too. But of course, you don't care about anything except what you personally believe because it's not about science, it's about your religion that matters.

If God himself came down to have a beer with you, you'd probably disbelieve Him as well despite personal experience.

 

[Big Fitz]

My, my, here we go again. So every scientific society in the world, every national academy of science, and every major university in the world is doctoring the data.

Your redacto in absurdum argument has a fail. Only the hoaxers and ignorant tools (like yourself) still hold to corrupt peer review that has been going on for 13 years.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

NOAA confirms: less H2O is causing the decline the Warmers tried to hide.

I think the science is finally settled

 

[Chris]

NOAA confirms: less H2O is causing the decline the Warmers tried to hide.

I think the science is finally settled

You are right the science is settled.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

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

These two factors are pulling the temps in different directions.

 

[Chris]

My, my, here we go again. So every scientific society in the world, every national academy of science, and every major university in the world is doctoring the data.

Your redacto in absurdum argument has a fail. Only the hoaxers and ignorant tools (like yourself) still hold to corrupt peer review that has been going on for 13 years.

Yes, all the national science academies in the world are in a conspiracy against you.

 

[Big Fitz]

You can have a fail too.

BTW, the London Telegraph has done you a major disservice again.

Poor cargo cultists.

 

[Chris]

You can have a fail too.

BTW, the London Telegraph has done you a major disservice again.

Poor cargo cultists.

Your BS is showing.

Again.

 

[Big Fitz]

You can have a fail too.

BTW, the London Telegraph has done you a major disservice again.

Poor cargo cultists.

Your BS is showing.

Again.

haven't seen the article or the thread yet have you?

 

[Chris]

You can have a fail too.

BTW, the London Telegraph has done you a major disservice again.

Poor cargo cultists.

Your BS is showing.

Again.

haven't seen the article or the thread yet have you?

I have.

It doesn't matter.

The only think that matters is that we have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years, and the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 200 years.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. This was proven experimentally in 1859.

Lower solar activity means a cooler earth.

These are the two main things that are influencing our climate right now.

Not the hot air coming from the right.