Global Warming is such Wooly Mammoth Crap.

[Old Rocks]

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.

yes, all the climate scientists say there's a problem. but little trumptard science denier knows better.

Hate to say this moron, but not all the climate scientists are saying there is a problem, only those that are on the payroll for the climate zelots.

'Global warming the greatest scam in history' claims founder of Weather Channel

'Global warming the greatest scam in history' claims founder of Weather Channel
THE debate about climate change is finished - because it has been categorically proved NOT to exist, one of the world's best known climate change sceptic has claimed.

I understand why you wont change your mind because if you do, then you must realize that your whole life has been one big lie.

LOL

Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that say AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Against that we are to take the meanderings of a demented old man that was never a scientist?

 

[ding]

No, the REAL questions are what is the optimum temperature and how do you know?

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

We aren't doing anything to the climate.

We're pumping in GHGs by the shitload every day.

Can you show me using CO2 and temperature from the geologic record where CO2 drove a climate change?

View attachment 166034

Right after you show me the the records over that same time period where humans were helping to change the climate more rapidly then it would without their GHGs.

There aren't any because it hasn't happened. We are still at least 2C below the peak temperature of the previous interglacial cycles.

You do understand what interglacial cycles are, right?

 

[ding]

No, the REAL questions are what is the optimum temperature and how do you know?

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.

 

[Taz]

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

We aren't doing anything to the climate.

We're pumping in GHGs by the shitload every day.

Can you show me using CO2 and temperature from the geologic record where CO2 drove a climate change?

View attachment 166034

Right after you show me the the records over that same time period where humans were helping to change the climate more rapidly then it would without their GHGs.

There aren't any because it hasn't happened. We are still at least 2C below the peak temperature of the previous interglacial cycles.

You do understand what interglacial cycles are, right?

So you're of the opinion that we won't go past the previous peak that is only 2 degrees away? And that human activity isn't doing anything in this regard?

 

[Taz]

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.

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?

 

[IanC]

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.

 

[IanC]

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.

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?

 

[JoeB131]

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.

 

[IanC]

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.

The change in CO2 is mostly man made. Thanks goodness! If it was being caused by natural factors then we really would be in the middle of climate upheaval.

CO2 is usually a symptom, not a cause, although it does seem to reinforce the warming side of the cycle between glacials and interglacials.

 

[ding]

We aren't doing anything to the climate.

We're pumping in GHGs by the shitload every day.

Can you show me using CO2 and temperature from the geologic record where CO2 drove a climate change?

View attachment 166034

Right after you show me the the records over that same time period where humans were helping to change the climate more rapidly then it would without their GHGs.

There aren't any because it hasn't happened. We are still at least 2C below the peak temperature of the previous interglacial cycles.

You do understand what interglacial cycles are, right?

So you're of the opinion that we won't go past the previous peak that is only 2 degrees away? And that human activity isn't doing anything in this regard?

The data shows that we are still in the normal range, Einstein.

 

[ding]

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.

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?

Ummm.... no. And they aren't meaningless.

Do you think we live in an icehouse world or a greenhouse world right now?

 

[ding]

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?

 

[ding]

Come on boys.... it's time to do some math!

 

[JoeB131]

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?

Probably high enough to kill us all, but do keep pretending we don't have a problem.

 

[IanC]

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.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Our descendants will probably all die out massively when the planet can't sustain humans anymore like it does now.

"Don't mind us, we are just putting off the next glacial age!"

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Global Warming is such Wooly Mammoth Crap.

Tell it to the Inuit

 

[IanC]

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?

Probably high enough to kill us all, but do keep pretending we don't have a problem.

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

 

[ding]

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?

Probably high enough to kill us all, but do keep pretending we don't have a problem.

So you don't even know what the IPCC projections are and what they are based upon?

Yet, you are certain there is a problem, Joe?

 

[JoeB131]

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.