Global Warming is such Wooly Mammoth Crap.

[ph3iron]

Bitter cold windchills and snow stick around… « FOX News Weather Blog

December 13, 2017 | 7:02 AM ET
Bitter cold windchills and snow stick around...
Good morning everyone. Happy Wednesday!

It’s a bitter cold midweek with windchills in the single digits and teens for millions this morning across the Great Lakes, Northeast, and Mid-Atlantic over the next few days.

So lets try this again.

Back in 2000 Al Gore said that the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years if the United States didn't do something about it. The Earth is still here.
Back in 2006 Al Gore produced an Inconvenient Truth predicting increased in Cat 5 hurricanes each year, massive tornado's, very little snow events, and warming to the point the Earth would burn up in 10 years. Guess what, less hurricanes each year, little tornado activities, lots of snow through polar vortexes, and the Earth is still here.
So with Global Warming year after year, because of the increase of CO2 each year, (liberal's words not mine) if last 2 years the temperature around Manassas has been in the high 30s and low 40s, WITH THE INCREASE OF TEMPERATURE YEAR AFTER YEAR....Where did the 20 degree temperature come from. What you morons don't understand is that your science says "each year with CO2 on the increase, the temperature will increase", yet is is 15 degrees lower...And don't give me shit that it is only weather... Yeah and when the summer is HOT , it is only weather.

Says knees news and our PhD climate guy here.
NASA and all the other scientific organizations don't know as much as you genius?
What are your qualifications again?
A knees news viewer?
Wow

 

[ph3iron]

Well, it's obvious it's not coming out of the liberals asses cause everyone knows they are full of hot air.

Might help if you knew the def of liberal instead of blabbing knees news.
No Latin in college?
No college?
Do tell

 

[Wyatt earp]

Okay , if i can prove that the data has been fucked with, will you kiss my ass?

Sure. Conversely, you have to kiss our ass if we show you're pushing fraud.

So, your link was a rambling opinion piece by Christoopher Booker, a well-know journalist anti-science crank who has no experience in any field of science, fabricating claims of fraud. Booker also denies evolution, that asbestos is harmful, that second-hand smoke is harmful, and that DDT is harmful. He's a crank and fraud on multiple topics, and you suck his ass. Just making it clear where we both stand. You suck the asses of frauds, and we reject frauds.

So, pucker up, snowflake. And try to understand that you won't make your fraud less fraudulent by repeating it over and over. I suggest you give up this scam. You're literally too goddamned stupid to understand the topic, so you can only post links to subjects you don't understand, and that will always leave you humiliated.

2nd hand smoke is not harmful you moron it has been proven...


It was another bullshit like by your assnine cult .

 

[skookerasbil]

Spambot is too stupid to understand science.

But winning............

People on the right don't have to try and understand the science. When you are winning there is no need. This whole ghey 10 year campaign by DUMS trying to portray the right as being stoopid on science has netted them what exactly? Well lets see now..........

1) A dead Paris treaty.
2) An EPA that is being gutted like a pig.
3) Zero climate legislation from congress in 10 years.
4) Laughable growth in renewable energy over the last 20 years.
5) Cap and Trade dead as a doornail.
6) Green candidates getting their clocks cleaned in every mid-term election.
7) Rising tide of climate skeptics
8) Major scientific organizations caught rigging the data.
9) Obama's CPP being train wrecked as we speak
10) Zero discussion of climate change at every presidential debate.


Spambot will take stupid every day to Sunday, s0n!!!

 

[ding]

ummm... the world will become much wetter Joe. The warming will be predominantly at the poles.

Again, 95% of REAL scientists disagree with you.

But, yeah, you might have a point, the world will be a lot "Wetter"

Fuck you, Florida!!!

So how high do you think the sea level will rise by 2100, chicken little?

 

[ding]

Joe, is that 1C from doubling of CO2 due to associated temperature from GHG or associated temperature from GHG plus feedbacks?

I would say that it is entirely because of AGW... and so do 95% of climate scientists.

But i'm sure you want to see the doctor who recommends the Ice Cream Diet.

You do realize there is a calc for that but then they add on top of that so called feedback, right?

So, what do you think atmospheric CO2 will be by 2100 and how much of a temp rise will that be responsible for, Joe?

 

[Old Rocks]

So you think we should all be ignorant of what humans are doing to climate?

As soon as we can isolate the human contribution from the natural fluctuation, please let me know.

Personally, I'm FOR global warming, but you're an ass with his head stuck in the sand.

I never claimed not to be an ass, Taz.

The only question is do you think you are any different.

As for my head being stuck in the sand, I've studied the geologic record extensively and I have yet to see any signs that atmospheric CO2 drives climate change. What about you?

The GHGs that we're pumping into the atmosphere these days is helping to change the climate.

You said that already. Did you know that atmospheric CO2 used to be ten times what it is today. Guess what? No one died.

12,000 years ago New York was under a quarter mile sheet of ice.

Dumb fuck, there were no humans alive at that time. Not only that, we have been homo sap only for about the last 200,000 years, just about two glacial cycles. So we were never around when the CO2 was above 300 ppm. Yes, 12,000 years ago, there was a continental ice sheet. So what?

And there have been a few times in geological history when the GHGs increased very rapidly. They were times of extinctions.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, yes, 95% of Climate scientist are getting it wrong, but you can read a graph, you think. Got it.

Those who are familiar with the science know that the total adjustments have, by making the past look much warmer, made the current warming look much smaller. That's not debatable, and that means Ian's crank conspiracy theory goes into the shitcan. Not that Ian will care. He's a true believer. His cult tells him to believe, so like every other denier here he'll keep cherrypicking his heart out until reality matches his dogma. He's not as dumb as the other deniers, but he is just as fanatical and brainwashed

The denier cult is based entirely on faking data. Fraud is what deniers do. It's all deniers do. If a denier says something, experience shows one should initially assume it's a lie, unless independent evidence indicates otherwise.

<data:blog.pageTitle/>

The thing you have to remember about mamooth is that he is a shyster. Three card monte, pea under the thimble, a huckster.

He tries to convince us that all adjustments are suitable because ONE large sea surface temperature correction went in the opposite direction. He wants us to ignore all the other adjustments since then.

In the 90s they just couldn't get the climate models to work with raw sea surface data so they made a large correction to compensate for going from canvas buckets to water intakes. A necessary but still discretionary adjustment.

Land surface station coverage is poor, especially before, say, 1950. But sea surface coverage is pathetic to non-existent for that period.

The poo flinging monkey likes to put up this graph as proof-

What does this graph imply? That post 1950 readings have hardly been adjusted, and that pre 1950 readings have been warmed. Say what????? That can't be right!

How the hell did they pull that off? Have you figured it out? Kept track of the pea under the thimble? Figured out which card is the queen of spades? Hahahaha.

Ian, old chap, you are losing it. Were they to adjust data to support increasing global warming, they would have made the older data cooler so as to show a larger warming. What they did was review the data, and adjust it for what they found in the review.

 

[Old Rocks]

Personally, I'm FOR global warming, but you're an ass with his head stuck in the sand.

I never claimed not to be an ass, Taz.

The only question is do you think you are any different.

As for my head being stuck in the sand, I've studied the geologic record extensively and I have yet to see any signs that atmospheric CO2 drives climate change. What about you?

The GHGs that we're pumping into the atmosphere these days is helping to change the climate.

You said that already. Did you know that atmospheric CO2 used to be ten times what it is today. Guess what? No one died.

12,000 years ago New York was under a quarter mile sheet of ice.

So these 2 meaningless stats are supposed to prove that humans aren't affecting climate change? Or are you purposely moving the goalposts to now discuss the level at which it might get harmful to humans?

So far the only large scale event that can be directly attributed to increased CO2, at least in part, is the greening of the planet.

Evil, right?

Ian's a dumb fuck, right? The melt of the north polar sea ice is having a major affect on our weather right now. From the increase in extreme precipitation events, to the fires that are currently costing us billions in property damage.

 

[Old Rocks]

You said that already. Did you know that atmospheric CO2 used to be ten times what it is today. Guess what? No one died.

12,000 years ago New York was under a quarter mile sheet of ice.

You keep missing the point... the CO2 level isn't just high, it's skyrocketing faster than the planet can cope with.

Those past increases did not happen over decades, they happened over millennia. In short, there was time for life to evolve to cope with changed climate.

You seem to keep missing the point that associated temperature due to GHG does not care about how fast CO2 rises.

Is it your belief that CO2 emissions will continue to rise exponentially? Because even the IPCC base projection does not show that.

Just how high do you think atmospheric CO2 will rise to by the year 2100?

At roughly 1C warming per doubling, CO2 is not going to produce any sort of tipping point. Hopefully for our descendants it will delay the next glacial period for a bit longer.

LOL Well now, other being totally full of bullshit, Ian, what else have you to say. We have reached 1 C already, and are nowhere near doubled. But at the rate we are seeing the increase in CO2 and CH4 from clathrates and permafrost I think that we will see the doubled mark in my lifetime. Of course, the system does have quite a bit of inertia in it, therefore I may not see the full result of that doubling.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, it won't be the cold or lack of food killing us. What exactly do you think WILL kill us?

The fact that a lot of farmland will turn into desert. Massive die-offs of species like bees we rely on for pollenizing. Melting glaciers will no longer feed rivers, causing areas to dry up. Stuff like that.

ummm... the world will become much wetter Joe. The warming will be predominantly at the poles.

No, parts of it will become much wetter, other parts will become much drier. And much wetter really helped the crops around Houston, right? And we know what much drier has done in California and South Dakota.

 

[Wyatt earp]

As soon as we can isolate the human contribution from the natural fluctuation, please let me know.

Personally, I'm FOR global warming, but you're an ass with his head stuck in the sand.

I never claimed not to be an ass, Taz.

The only question is do you think you are any different.

As for my head being stuck in the sand, I've studied the geologic record extensively and I have yet to see any signs that atmospheric CO2 drives climate change. What about you?

The GHGs that we're pumping into the atmosphere these days is helping to change the climate.

You said that already. Did you know that atmospheric CO2 used to be ten times what it is today. Guess what? No one died.

12,000 years ago New York was under a quarter mile sheet of ice.

Dumb fuck, there were no humans alive at that time. Not only that, we have been homo sap only for about the last 200,000 years, just about two glacial cycles. So we were never around when the CO2 was above 300 ppm. Yes, 12,000 years ago, there was a continental ice sheet. So what?

And there have been a few times in geological history when the GHGs increased very rapidly. They were times of extinctions.

Wait so Dino's lived when C02 was five times higher and your telling us humans can't?


Your taking propaganda to new exreme's old rock tell us more...

 

[Old Rocks]

Milder winters, longer growing seasons, higher crop yields......we're doomed!!!

droughts, more extreme weather, shifting of the gulf stream... um, yeah, we would be.

Not doomed, but handing our children and grandchildren a much lesser world than we inherited.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Bitter cold windchills and snow stick around… « FOX News Weather Blog

December 13, 2017 | 7:02 AM ET
Bitter cold windchills and snow stick around...
Good morning everyone. Happy Wednesday!

It’s a bitter cold midweek with windchills in the single digits and teens for millions this morning across the Great Lakes, Northeast, and Mid-Atlantic over the next few days.

So lets try this again.

Back in 2000 Al Gore said that the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years if the United States didn't do something about it. The Earth is still here.
Back in 2006 Al Gore produced an Inconvenient Truth predicting increased in Cat 5 hurricanes each year, massive tornado's, very little snow events, and warming to the point the Earth would burn up in 10 years. Guess what, less hurricanes each year, little tornado activities, lots of snow through polar vortexes, and the Earth is still here.
So with Global Warming year after year, because of the increase of CO2 each year, (liberal's words not mine) if last 2 years the temperature around Manassas has been in the high 30s and low 40s, WITH THE INCREASE OF TEMPERATURE YEAR AFTER YEAR....Where did the 20 degree temperature come from. What you morons don't understand is that your science says "each year with CO2 on the increase, the temperature will increase", yet is is 15 degrees lower...And don't give me shit that it is only weather... Yeah and when the summer is HOT , it is only weather.

Says knees news and our PhD climate guy here.
NASA and all the other scientific organizations don't know as much as you genius?
What are your qualifications again?
A knees news viewer?
Wow

His main qualifications is he graduated from the 2nd grade when they were talking about ice ages and stuff it appears you did not .

 

[Old Rocks]

Personally, I'm FOR global warming, but you're an ass with his head stuck in the sand.

I never claimed not to be an ass, Taz.

The only question is do you think you are any different.

As for my head being stuck in the sand, I've studied the geologic record extensively and I have yet to see any signs that atmospheric CO2 drives climate change. What about you?

The GHGs that we're pumping into the atmosphere these days is helping to change the climate.

You said that already. Did you know that atmospheric CO2 used to be ten times what it is today. Guess what? No one died.

12,000 years ago New York was under a quarter mile sheet of ice.

Dumb fuck, there were no humans alive at that time. Not only that, we have been homo sap only for about the last 200,000 years, just about two glacial cycles. So we were never around when the CO2 was above 300 ppm. Yes, 12,000 years ago, there was a continental ice sheet. So what?

And there have been a few times in geological history when the GHGs increased very rapidly. They were times of extinctions.

Wait so Dino's lived when C02 was five times higher and your telling us humans can't?


Your taking propaganda to new exreme's old rock tell us more...

You failed to address that I pointed out it was very rapid changes in GHGs that caused the extinctions. In fact, rapid changes in either direction has caused extinctions.

BBC Nature - Big Five mass extinction events

 

[Wyatt earp]

Milder winters, longer growing seasons, higher crop yields......we're doomed!!!

droughts, more extreme weather, shifting of the gulf stream... um, yeah, we would be.

Not doomed, but handing our children and grandchildren a much lesser world than we inherited.

This was happening any way regardless if man was here or not...

You want to leave them a world of crap sky high Electric prices sky high taxes ..


A sihitty ass world

 

[Old Rocks]

Not this bullocks again,I live in Colorado and I am seeing cold dead dry facts. Pine beetles devouring forests, the dying of the wilderness and the drought we are locked into. In my lifetime. And California is burning in December.

As well as South Dakota.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I never claimed not to be an ass, Taz.

The only question is do you think you are any different.

As for my head being stuck in the sand, I've studied the geologic record extensively and I have yet to see any signs that atmospheric CO2 drives climate change. What about you?

The GHGs that we're pumping into the atmosphere these days is helping to change the climate.

You said that already. Did you know that atmospheric CO2 used to be ten times what it is today. Guess what? No one died.

12,000 years ago New York was under a quarter mile sheet of ice.

Dumb fuck, there were no humans alive at that time. Not only that, we have been homo sap only for about the last 200,000 years, just about two glacial cycles. So we were never around when the CO2 was above 300 ppm. Yes, 12,000 years ago, there was a continental ice sheet. So what?

And there have been a few times in geological history when the GHGs increased very rapidly. They were times of extinctions.

Wait so Dino's lived when C02 was five times higher and your telling us humans can't?


Your taking propaganda to new exreme's old rock tell us more...

You failed to address that I pointed out it was very rapid changes in GHGs that caused the extinctions. In fact, rapid changes in either direction has caused extinctions.

BBC Nature - Big Five mass extinction events

Once again so what? Once again we seen the sahra dessert go from tropical to dry in a cosmic flash ...

 

[Old Rocks]

Who is reading briebart you moron I was reading the 2008 study jack ass from your cult

Yes, the study that says you're totally full of shit. That's why it's so pointless of you to keep bringing it up. Everyone already knows you're a cult fraud, so you don't need to keep reinforcing that point.

Where in this study proves me wrong mamooth.. I nailed you with your own study .

THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RECORDS:
A COOLING TREND. Efforts to accumulate and organize global temperature records began in
the 1870s (Somerville et al. 2007). The first analysis to show long-term warming trends was published
in 1938. However, such analyses were not updated very often. Indeed, the Earth appeared to have been
cooling for more than 2 decades when scientists first took note of the change in trend in the 1960s. The
seminal work was done by J. Murray Mitchell, who, in 1963, presented the first up-to-date temperature
reconstruction showing that a global cooling trend had begun in the 1940s. Mitchell used data from
nearly 200 weather stations, collected by the World Weather Records project under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization, to calculate latitudinal average temperature. His analysis showed
that global temperatures had increased fairly steadily from the 1880s, the start of his record, until about 1940, before the start of a steady multidecade cooling (Mitchell 1963).By the early 1970s, when Mitchell updated his work
(Mitchell 1972), the notion of a global cooling trend was widely accepted, albeit poorly understood. The first satellite records showed increasing snow and ice cover across the Northern Hemispherefrom the late
1960s to the early 1970s. This trend was capped by unusually severe winters in Asia and parts of North
America in 1972 and 1973 (Kukla andKukla 1974

Your own fucking study mamooth says global cooling was WIDELY accepted in the 1970s. .

Crap. Widely accepted by those that did not bother to read the scientific publications of the day.

Peer-Reviewed Literature
However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more cooling papers than warming papers (Peterson 2008).

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

 

[ScienceRocks]

I almost wish that the worst case of global warming would occur within my life in order to see you admit how wrong you're.