Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More for you kooks........Global Cooling Chills Summer 2009 by Deroy Murdock on National Review Online
By the way, the National Review has about as much credibility on scientific subjects as the National Enquirer, or better yet, the Weekly World. Wingnut fruitcakes ignoring science to make political points.
Put on a sweater folks...
Ozzy, old boy, for your benefit, I will repeat my prediction of two years in the next five that exceed 1998 and 2005. When that happens, you who deny reality will have to come up with another bloody lie to cover your asses.
And June, 2009 was the second hottest june on record.
NCDC: Second hottest June on record and once El Nino really kicks in, expect global temperatures to threaten previous record highs « Climate Progress
NCDC: Second hottest June on record and once El Nino really kicks in, expect global temperatures to threaten previous record highs
July 16, 2009
Fast on the heels of the fourth warmest May on record, NOAAs National Climatic Data Center reports:
Based on preliminary data, the globally averaged combined land and sea surface temperature was the second warmest on record for June, and the January-June year-to-date tied with 2004 as the fifth warmest on record.
NCDC notes that the ocean temperature was the warmest on record. In fact, it was a full 0.11°F warmer than the 2005 record. This is almost certainly the new El Niño on top of the long-term warming trend (see NOAA says El Niño arrives; Expected to Persist through Winter 2009-10″ and that means record temperatures are coming and this will be the hottest decade on record).
And no, I dont think the monthly data tell us much about the climate. But I know reporting it annoys the deniers. Also, the deniers have been touting the supposedly cool June temperatures over parts of this country (although the lower 48 in fact had the 49th warmest June on record, and Alaska had the 21st warmest). Across parts of Africa and most of Eurasia, however, temperatures were 3°C (5°F) or more above average. Such warming may be coming to the US later in the year. It typically takes several months for the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) to impact global temperatures.
I am predicting, within 5 years, two years of tempertures that will exceed those of 1998 and 2005. By all your graphs and other nonsense, this cannot happen. So when it does, I will remind you of your foolishness.
The ice cap and the glaciers continue to melt, and CO2 level continues to rise.
When the Sun becomes active again the temps will rise even more.
And if the arctic methane kicks in, watch out.
I see. And I am to trust you more than NOAA?
I see. And I am to trust you more than NOAA?
I think you were responding to the post I put up. What I said was that I was going to post a link and a quote. You can trust me that I did what i said i would do.
The thoughts and the frustration were posted by a scientist that is unsure how to prove or disprove what GISS represents as facts because it is so garbled and inconsistant as to be menaingless.
This could be what makes it the outlier that it is.
As opposed to clinging to a stone age process of gathering data that is ridiculed by most and heavily adjusted by those who conduct the process, why not join those who question both the system and the process.
If every GISS conclusion must be adjusted because the GISS knows that the data is wrong, what does this tell you about the data. Hint: It should tell you that the data is wrong.
I see. And I am to trust you more than NOAA?
I think you were responding to the post I put up. What I said was that I was going to post a link and a quote. You can trust me that I did what i said i would do.
The thoughts and the frustration were posted by a scientist that is unsure how to prove or disprove what GISS represents as facts because it is so garbled and inconsistant as to be menaingless.
This could be what makes it the outlier that it is.
As opposed to clinging to a stone age process of gathering data that is ridiculed by most and heavily adjusted by those who conduct the process, why not join those who question both the system and the process.
If every GISS conclusion must be adjusted because the GISS knows that the data is wrong, what does this tell you about the data. Hint: It should tell you that the data is wrong.
No one has stated that at some points in history the earth has cooled and warmed. I think the point of disagreement is to do with the relevance of man's role in said heating and cooling.
More for you kooks
" Earths temperatures continue a chilling trend that began eleven years ago."
The warmers are not gonna like that!!
Careful, you are making a liar of jreeves with that link!
BTW, the last decade is the warmest decade since the direct instrument measurement of temperature began over 100 years ago. Some "chilling trend!"
Quote: Originally Posted by ozzmdj
More for you kooks
" Earths temperatures continue a chilling trend that began eleven years ago."
No one has stated that at some points in history the earth has cooled and warmed. I think the point of disagreement is to do with the relevance of man's role in said heating and cooling.
The warmers are not gonna like that!!
Careful, you are making a liar of jreeves with that link!
BTW, the last decade is the warmest decade since the direct instrument measurement of temperature began over 100 years ago. Some "chilling trend!"
I guess by calling someone else a liar without a leg to stand on, must make you feel better about being a hypocrite.
Quote: Originally Posted by ozzmdj
More for you kooks
" Earths temperatures continue a chilling trend that began eleven years ago."
Careful, you are making a liar of jreeves with that link!
BTW, the last decade is the warmest decade since the direct instrument measurement of temperature began over 100 years ago. Some "chilling trend!"
I guess by calling someone else a liar without a leg to stand on, must make you feel better about being a hypocrite.
Well, you DID claim the disagreement was not over the present warming trend but man's role in it.
But there are your fellow deniers claiming the warmest decade in the history of direct instrument measurement is a "chilling trend." That seems like a pretty strong leg to stand on. It sure seems like deniers are disagreeing with more than man's role in the present global warming.
Quote: Originally Posted by ozzmdj
More for you kooks
" Earths temperatures continue a chilling trend that began eleven years ago."I guess by calling someone else a liar without a leg to stand on, must make you feel better about being a hypocrite.
Well, you DID claim the disagreement was not over the present warming trend but man's role in it.
But there are your fellow deniers claiming the warmest decade in the history of direct instrument measurement is a "chilling trend." That seems like a pretty strong leg to stand on. It sure seems like deniers are disagreeing with more than man's role in the present global warming.
You do realize that there is more than one source for temperature readings. Some are more reliable than others....
I find it astounding that you and others claim to know that AGW is taking place based on a 100 years of temperature measurements on record, yet the earth is millions of years old. If your only contention is that the earth heats up and cools off, I concede that point. If that isn't your contention then please state it clearly.
Well, you DID claim the disagreement was not over the present warming trend but man's role in it.
But there are your fellow deniers claiming the warmest decade in the history of direct instrument measurement is a "chilling trend." That seems like a pretty strong leg to stand on. It sure seems like deniers are disagreeing with more than man's role in the present global warming.
You do realize that there is more than one source for temperature readings. Some are more reliable than others....
I find it astounding that you and others claim to know that AGW is taking place based on a 100 years of temperature measurements on record, yet the earth is millions of years old. If your only contention is that the earth heats up and cools off, I concede that point. If that isn't your contention then please state it clearly.
But those cycles suggest we should be well into a new Ice age by now. So this 100 year warming trend flies in the face of the natural cycle of the last 400,000+ years.
Increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% is warming the planet.
George Carlin doesn't change that.
You're a douchebag. NOTHING can change THAT.
You do realize that there is more than one source for temperature readings. Some are more reliable than others....
I find it astounding that you and others claim to know that AGW is taking place based on a 100 years of temperature measurements on record, yet the earth is millions of years old. If your only contention is that the earth heats up and cools off, I concede that point. If that isn't your contention then please state it clearly.
But those cycles suggest we should be well into a new Ice age by now. So this 100 year warming trend flies in the face of the natural cycle of the last 400,000+ years.
Hmm...so you were alive the entire 400,000 + years? Just wondering since you know what the natural cycle has been for that time frame.
