Look how much warmer we are today than 12 years ago...

[k2skier]

In science, sometimes the easiest explanation is the most accurate...

In religion, guilt, self denial and self immolation are always the easiest routes to absolutist tyranny.

I am not entirely sure some in here are fully aware of how completely you dominate them at every turn.

Carry on!

Ass kisser Duds only domination is in his own mind

 

[Alan Partridge]

It's the last one, and I was mistaken.

____________


Thank you.

As you can clearly see by the satellite data from 1979 to present, temps are approximately the same as they were 30 years ago, and well below the high average in 1998.

See, you learn something every day!

Good on you!

Partridge admits they were wrong.

Cooling trend far more than two or three years...

wow, you really have no idea of the science, or you'd answer a simple question.

 

[Sinatra]

In religion, guilt, self denial and self immolation are always the easiest routes to absolutist tyranny.

I am not entirely sure some in here are fully aware of how completely you dominate them at every turn.

Carry on!

Ass kisser Duds only domination is in his own mind

Dude rules!

 

[Sinatra]

If this isn't proof of global warming being a farce, I don't know what is!

These are SST readings from 1997 and 2009. SST means sea surface temperature, meaning the temperature at the surface of the sea.

The blues and purples mean below average and the reds and oranges mean above average.

Please note: Despite the weatherman on TV's definition of "average" in terms of the correct definition for weather, "average" does NOT mean "normal." It means out of a collection of temperatures on this date for the past 50 years, this is the AVERAGE temperature, meaning it's been warmer and it's been colder and this is the middle temperature.

That's 1997. Look at all of the reds and oranges. Look at that pool of warm water by South America into the Pacific Ocean. This means that the water in that area is above average by a significant amount. In Summer 1997 we were in the midst of an El Nino, so this is quite normal for what an El Nino looks like.

This is today... or yesterday. First, look at all of the blues and purples. There's a good deal of them. But also look at the orange beginning to turn darker near South America. This would be consistent with a developing El Nino, which is what I've been saying would happen for months and what NOAA recently said was happening.

If we're in global warming, there should be far less blues and yellows and far MORE oranges and reds, meaning that we should be warmer than the average. But we're not. In fact, we're cooler now than we were during July 1997. Why is that? Because we recently emerged from a very strong La Nina that's lasted from 2005 on. Whereas the last El Nino that developed from a La Nina was in 1996, the La Nina in 1995-1996 wasn't very strong at all. But wait a minute - how could we have a very strong La Nina when we have global warming going on?

The fact of the matter is, don't read any stupid pro or against websites, don't listen to the shit you hear on TV or radio. Look at these two maps. We're not warming. At all.

Our temperatures are dependent upon ENSO cycles. When we have a La Nina, we're cold and dry. When we have an El Nino, we're warm and wet. When we're neutral, it can go either way. So while I don't predict this upcoming winter to be anywhere close to as cold as last winter, I do predict much of the US will have a very nice snow season.

Those images clearly show a cooling earth.

Question is- how much cooler is it gonna get?

I would rather we warm up a degree or two...

 

[Alan Partridge]

oh, wow, the same cut and paste graphs.

tell me, sinatra, what is the PDO that you base many of your cut and paste graphs on?

 

[Sinatra]

If this isn't proof of global warming being a farce, I don't know what is!

These are SST readings from 1997 and 2009. SST means sea surface temperature, meaning the temperature at the surface of the sea.

The blues and purples mean below average and the reds and oranges mean above average.

Please note: Despite the weatherman on TV's definition of "average" in terms of the correct definition for weather, "average" does NOT mean "normal." It means out of a collection of temperatures on this date for the past 50 years, this is the AVERAGE temperature, meaning it's been warmer and it's been colder and this is the middle temperature.

That's 1997. Look at all of the reds and oranges. Look at that pool of warm water by South America into the Pacific Ocean. This means that the water in that area is above average by a significant amount. In Summer 1997 we were in the midst of an El Nino, so this is quite normal for what an El Nino looks like.

This is today... or yesterday. First, look at all of the blues and purples. There's a good deal of them. But also look at the orange beginning to turn darker near South America. This would be consistent with a developing El Nino, which is what I've been saying would happen for months and what NOAA recently said was happening.

If we're in global warming, there should be far less blues and yellows and far MORE oranges and reds, meaning that we should be warmer than the average. But we're not. In fact, we're cooler now than we were during July 1997. Why is that? Because we recently emerged from a very strong La Nina that's lasted from 2005 on. Whereas the last El Nino that developed from a La Nina was in 1996, the La Nina in 1995-1996 wasn't very strong at all. But wait a minute - how could we have a very strong La Nina when we have global warming going on?

The fact of the matter is, don't read any stupid pro or against websites, don't listen to the shit you hear on TV or radio. Look at these two maps. We're not warming. At all.

Our temperatures are dependent upon ENSO cycles. When we have a La Nina, we're cold and dry. When we have an El Nino, we're warm and wet. When we're neutral, it can go either way. So while I don't predict this upcoming winter to be anywhere close to as cold as last winter, I do predict much of the US will have a very nice snow season.

Those images clearly show a cooling earth.

Question is- how much cooler is it gonna get?

I would rather we warm up a degree or two...

Not my graph pard - but it sure tells a tale of global cooling nevertheless...

 

[Alan Partridge]

so you admit all you're doing is cutting and pasting graphs.

What's a PDO?

^ 5th time I have asked, only graphs in response

Also, the data for the 2009 graph is imcomplete, where's the data for the SST around the polar regions?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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

Pretty easy to explain.

Ahhhh so its not man made global warming after all.

Thanks for the 411 chris

 

[edthecynic]

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

Pretty easy to explain.

Ahhhh so its not man made global warming after all.

Thanks for the 411 chris

Well, that argument might be valid if we had the lowest temps in 80 years to go along with the low sun activity. But we don't!
Nature seems to modulate the long term warming trend but it does not seem powerful enough to reverse it in the long term. At least not in the last 100 years.

 

[KittenKoder]

Even if the environut data was accurate (we know it's not) the whole thing is still circumstantial, no matter how you spin it. It's assumption and any real scientist would not make global life and death decisions based on such flimsy connections, the fact that environut scientists are willing to endorse and cater to a few special interest groups and corporations (thus putting all the wealth into the hands of a very few) is proof that they are manipulating the data.

 

[edthecynic]

Even if the environut data was accurate (we know it's not) the whole thing is still circumstantial, no matter how you spin it. It's assumption and any real scientist would not make global life and death decisions based on such flimsy connections, the fact that environut scientists are willing to endorse and cater to a few special interest groups and corporations (thus putting all the wealth into the hands of a very few) is proof that they are manipulating the data.

The problem with that assumption is the data of the deniers used to question the scientific data has been shown to be deliberately cooked. So you don't really know the scientific data is not accurate, you just religiously believe the deniers no matter how dishonest they are shown to be.

 

[KittenKoder]

Even if the environut data was accurate (we know it's not) the whole thing is still circumstantial, no matter how you spin it. It's assumption and any real scientist would not make global life and death decisions based on such flimsy connections, the fact that environut scientists are willing to endorse and cater to a few special interest groups and corporations (thus putting all the wealth into the hands of a very few) is proof that they are manipulating the data.

The problem with that assumption is the data of the deniers used to question the scientific data has been shown to be deliberately cooked. So you don't really know the scientific data is not accurate, you just religiously believe the deniers no matter how dishonest they are shown to be.

Um ... yes, yes we do know. You are assuming it is and pushing for legislation that could wind up destroying our species ... I would rather be on the side that does nothing based on altered data, clearer conscience. Though in reality we should be looking for ways to survive it. Almost everything done for the environuts has had huge negative impacts on us, from "wild fires" that are more out of control to unbalanced evolution and food sources vanishing, all of which put a fortune into the pockets of only a few people. Look more into it, you won't like what you are supporting

 

[edthecynic]

Even if the environut data was accurate (we know it's not) the whole thing is still circumstantial, no matter how you spin it. It's assumption and any real scientist would not make global life and death decisions based on such flimsy connections, the fact that environut scientists are willing to endorse and cater to a few special interest groups and corporations (thus putting all the wealth into the hands of a very few) is proof that they are manipulating the data.

The problem with that assumption is the data of the deniers used to question the scientific data has been shown to be deliberately cooked. So you don't really know the scientific data is not accurate, you just religiously believe the deniers no matter how dishonest they are shown to be.

Um ... yes, yes we do know. You are assuming it is and pushing for legislation that could wind up destroying our species ... I would rather be on the side that does nothing based on altered data, clearer conscience. Though in reality we should be looking for ways to survive it. Almost everything done for the environuts has had huge negative impacts on us, from "wild fires" that are more out of control to unbalanced evolution and food sources vanishing, all of which put a fortune into the pockets of only a few people. Look more into it, you won't like what you are supporting

That is just more tinfoil hat CON$ervative religious dogma.

 

[Chris]

Who cares about bogus temperature data?

The polar ice cap is melting!

 

[KittenKoder]

Who cares about bogus temperature data?

The polar ice cap is melting!

What is the purpose of glacial and polar ice? Until you answer that your point is ... well pointless, worthless, and just more hot air.

 

[Chris]

Who cares about bogus temperature data?

The polar ice cap is melting!

What is the purpose of glacial and polar ice? Until you answer that your point is ... well pointless, worthless, and just more hot air.

Glacier National Park used to have 150 glaciers, now it has about 25.

Why?

 

[KittenKoder]

Who cares about bogus temperature data?

The polar ice cap is melting!

What is the purpose of glacial and polar ice? Until you answer that your point is ... well pointless, worthless, and just more hot air.

Glacier National Park used to have 150 glaciers, now it has about 25.

Why?

Until you answer my scientific and very important question, yours are still pointless.

Why is the ice important in nature?

 

[Chris]

What is the purpose of glacial and polar ice? Until you answer that your point is ... well pointless, worthless, and just more hot air.

Glacier National Park used to have 150 glaciers, now it has about 25.

Why?

Until you answer my scientific and very important question, yours are still pointless.

Why is the ice important in nature?

Why are all the glaciers melting?

 

[KittenKoder]

Glacier National Park used to have 150 glaciers, now it has about 25.

Why?

Until you answer my scientific and very important question, yours are still pointless.

Why is the ice important in nature?

Why are all the glaciers melting?

Your question has no value until you answer mine, why is it needed?

If it serves no purpose then who cares about them melting, it would have no effect, meaning (if they actually are, which has yet to be proven) there is nothing to worry about.

 

[Intense]

I read in a really big fortune cookie once that the glaciers reflect sun light, keeping the earth cooler. Thats the theory. Heavy snow fall is a great help in preserving them.