More record temps

[FactFinder]

Record Events for Mon Mar 14, 2011 through Sun Mar 20, 2011

High Temperatures: 537
Low Temperatures: 11

HAMweather Climate Center - Record High Temperatures for The Past Week - Continental US View

Where the F are they? Not in New England. Oh yeah we have selective global warming. Excusse me, I forgot!

 

[elvis]

Meister, you are just plain stupid. The scientists are from differant countries with differant political systems and ideologies. Yet they all agree, AGW is real and a threat.

The leading Scientific Society of Physicists unequivecolly endorses the statement from the AGU. And posts on their site the scientific history of the research into GHGs and how they work, and their effect on the atmosphere and environment.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

That is the American Institute of Physics site.

Of course, you have an obese junkie on the radio for your source of science, so how can you possibly be wrong?

 

[Meister]

Meister, you are just plain stupid. The scientists are from differant countries with differant political systems and ideologies. Yet they all agree, AGW is real and a threat.

The leading Scientific Society of Physicists unequivecolly endorses the statement from the AGU. And posts on their site the scientific history of the research into GHGs and how they work, and their effect on the atmosphere and environment.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

That is the American Institute of Physics site.

Of course, you have an obese junkie on the radio for your source of science, so how can you possibly be wrong?

I just couldn't bring myself to respond to the Algorian Cultist.

 

[saveliberty]

Suppose to be really cold for this time of year here next week. New Zealand just sent a penguin off to Antarticia. Why would they do that with all the ice melted? Seems kind of rude to make him swim all that way.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Question for Old rocks

Can you tell me how the co2 molecule transmits energy from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface? I understand that within Meteorology that the temperature with height increases throughout the Troposphere, and the warmest air(densest) is near the surface that warms the atmosphere above...That is why the temperature decreases with height. Yes, I understand Latent heat and how how it phase charges and releases heat into the environment, but that doesn't explain how that energy makes it back to a warmer surface from a cold atmosphere.

I understand that Fourier tried to explain that the second law is all about net energy transfer, but the discussion at skeptical science on this topic in how they couldn't put it to sleep is one of interest to me. It brings some doubt into my mind. I need more information on this and it works.

Can you give me some stuff that shows how this can work. Like more of fouriers idea's of heat transfer and how it can work besides being a net flow of heat?

Thank you old rocks.

 

[westwall]

...We have pointed out many times that the various bodies you claim to show universal support for the dogma of AGW are in fact the leadership and NOT THE BODY OF THE MEMBERSHIP of those various organisations...

Please provide support for the implication that the "BODY OF THE MEMBERSHIP" of any national or international scientific organization or group substantively disagrees with the mainstream scientific principles and understandings associated with anthropogenically forced climate change.

Allready done in many previous posts. Learn how to use the search engine.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Question for Old rocks

Can you tell me how the co2 molecule transmits energy from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface? I understand that within Meteorology that the temperature with height increases throughout the Troposphere, and the warmest air(densest) is near the surface that warms the atmosphere above...That is why the temperature decreases with height. Yes, I understand Latent heat and how how it phase charges and releases heat into the environment, but that doesn't explain how that energy makes it back to a warmer surface from a cold atmosphere.

I understand that Fourier tried to explain that the second law is all about net energy transfer, but the discussion at skeptical science on this topic in how they couldn't put it to sleep is one of interest to me. It brings some doubt into my mind. I need more information on this and it works.

Can you give me some stuff that shows how this can work. Like more of fouriers idea's of heat transfer and how it can work besides being a net flow of heat?

Thank you old rocks.

 

[Old Rocks]

Question for Old rocks

Can you tell me how the co2 molecule transmits energy from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface? I understand that within Meteorology that the temperature with height increases throughout the Troposphere, and the warmest air(densest) is near the surface that warms the atmosphere above...That is why the temperature decreases with height. Yes, I understand Latent heat and how how it phase charges and releases heat into the environment, but that doesn't explain how that energy makes it back to a warmer surface from a cold atmosphere.

I understand that Fourier tried to explain that the second law is all about net energy transfer, but the discussion at skeptical science on this topic in how they couldn't put it to sleep is one of interest to me. It brings some doubt into my mind. I need more information on this and it works.

Can you give me some stuff that shows how this can work. Like more of fouriers idea's of heat transfer and how it can work besides being a net flow of heat?

Thank you old rocks.

Biology 750: Fluorescence

 

[Old Rocks]

...We have pointed out many times that the various bodies you claim to show universal support for the dogma of AGW are in fact the leadership and NOT THE BODY OF THE MEMBERSHIP of those various organisations...

Please provide support for the implication that the "BODY OF THE MEMBERSHIP" of any national or international scientific organization or group substantively disagrees with the mainstream scientific principles and understandings associated with anthropogenically forced climate change.

Allready done in many previous posts. Learn how to use the search engine.

Like hell. I provided an explicit example of the membership of the Association of Petroleum Geologists forcing the the leadership to acknowledge the reality of GHGs and global warming. You have provided nothing but yap-yap. Another lie to cover the fact that there are no examples.

 

[skookerasbil]

The EIA study shows that these critics have fingered the wrong energies. Researchers report that last year, oil, natural gas, and coal received a total of 11 percent of all federal energy subsidies. And most of those oil and natural gas “subsidies” are typical deductions, deferrals, and credits that all businesses take.

In fact, as a share of net income, the oil and gas industry paid 41.1 percent in federal income taxes last year, compared to 26.5 percent for all non-oil and gas S&P 500 manufacturing companies. Meanwhile, oil and gas account for 78 percent of domestic energy production and are responsible for more than 9.2 million American jobs.

Where Federal Energy Subsidies Really Go - Forbes

 

[Chris]

Record Events for Mon Aug 29, 2011 through Sun Sep 4, 2011

High Temperatures: 1293
Low Temperatures: 52
Lowest Max Temperatures: 73
Highest Min Temperatures: 1206

HAMweather Climate Center - Record High Temperatures for The Past Week - Continental US View

 

[daveman]

It's funny how Chris is still desperately claiming that weather is climate.

 

[Trakar]

...We have pointed out many times that the various bodies you claim to show universal support for the dogma of AGW are in fact the leadership and NOT THE BODY OF THE MEMBERSHIP of those various organisations...

Please provide support for the implication that the "BODY OF THE MEMBERSHIP" of any national or international scientific organization or group substantively disagrees with the mainstream scientific principles and understandings associated with anthropogenically forced climate change.

Allready done in many previous posts. Learn how to use the search engine.

I see nothing in any of these, even the singlet tantrum among the fringe petroleum geologists fraternity that supports your assertion or addresses my question:

DPA Climate Change

...Issue:
In the last century, growth in human population has increased energy use. This has contributed additional carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases to the atmosphere. Although the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases, AAPG believes that expansion of scientific climate research into the basic controls on climate is important.

...Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, American Academy for the Advancement of Science, and American Meteorological Society. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum-case scenarios forecast in some models.

...AAPG supports research to narrow probability ranges on the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on global climate. • AAPG supports reducing emissions from fossil fuel use as a worthy goal.

...AAPG supports the premise that economies must retain their vitality if they are to be able to invest in alternative energy sources as fossil fuels become more expensive.

...AAPG supports the pursuit of economically viable technology to sequester carbon dioxide emissions and emissions of other gases in a continuing effort to improve our environment and enhance energy recovery. • AAPG supports measures to conserve energy.

Despite all the conditionals and quibbling, I see nothing in the above that "provides support for the implication that the "BODY OF THE MEMBERSHIP" of any national or international scientific organization or group substantively disagrees with the mainstream scientific principles and understandings associated with anthropogenically forced climate change."

Please provide support for your assertion that this has happened anywhere in any legitimate national or international scientific organization.

 

[Trakar]

Meister, you are just plain stupid. The scientists are from differant countries with differant political systems and ideologies. Yet they all agree, AGW is real and a threat.

The leading Scientific Society of Physicists unequivecolly endorses the statement from the AGU. And posts on their site the scientific history of the research into GHGs and how they work, and their effect on the atmosphere and environment.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

That is the American Institute of Physics site.

Of course, you have an obese junkie on the radio for your source of science, so how can you possibly be wrong?

THEY DO NOT ALL AGREE!!!

The IPCC says they do, greenpeace says they do, and the UEA feeds the BS. The reality is they do not all agree. In the IPCC reports alone there is a vast disparity in what scientists say as opposed to what the IPCC claims they say. This has been attested to many times by the very scientists they employ. They tell them one thing and they (IPCC) turn into something else. its let go because they are a governmental body and its funding for them.

Please provide, verifiable reliable reference (no whackadoodle fringe political blogs) supporting this assertion.

 

[Chris]

Record Events for Tue Aug 30, 2011 through Mon Sep 5, 2011

High Temperatures: 1025
Low Temperatures: 53
Lowest Max Temperatures: 74
Highest Min Temperatures: 1032

HAMweather Climate Center - Record High Temperatures for The Past Week - Continental US View

 

[skookerasbil]

Record Events for Tue Aug 30, 2011 through Mon Sep 5, 2011

High Temperatures: 1025
Low Temperatures: 53
Lowest Max Temperatures: 74
Highest Min Temperatures: 1032

HAMweather Climate Center - Record High Temperatures for The Past Week - Continental US View

 

[Old Rocks]

There are a lot of people in Texas caring right now.

 

[Meister]

There are a lot of people in Texas caring right now.

Most people in Tx are still smarter than you ol' rockhead. They aren't blaming AGW

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. No, AGW is not to blame for the extreme heat and drought in Texas, it has happened before. AGW is not to blame for the spring and summer long flooding on the Missouri and Mississippi, it has happened before, or at least it has flooded before. AGW is not to blame for the extreme outbreak of tornados in the Midwest and South, it has happened before. AGW is not to blame for the Northeast floods prior to Irene, it has happened before. The Arctic Ice is at 3 million square miles for the fourth year, oops, that has not happened in recorded history before.

All this in just one year. But AGW cannot possibly have anything to do with it. That would not be as 'the way things oughter be'.

 

[gslack]

LOL. No, AGW is not to blame for the extreme heat and drought in Texas, it has happened before. AGW is not to blame for the spring and summer long flooding on the Missouri and Mississippi, it has happened before, or at least it has flooded before. AGW is not to blame for the extreme outbreak of tornados in the Midwest and South, it has happened before. AGW is not to blame for the Northeast floods prior to Irene, it has happened before. The Arctic Ice is at 3 million square miles for the fourth year, oops, that has not happened in recorded history before.

All this in just one year. But AGW cannot possibly have anything to do with it. That would not be as 'the way things oughter be'.

Yes, yes greenpeace says this and al gore says that, la la la.... Windpower that what we need, right socks?