More record temps

[skookerasbil]

Evidently, somebody caught Bobnote out doing testing on his homemade emergency ark this past Friday and took some pics.................

Im actually pretty impressed!!! Most musicians are known to be unable to even build a Burger King kids toy so although the design of this guys emergency ark looks a bit crude, it actually looks sea worthy!

 

[Old Rocks]

So when somebody notices the CO2 concentration is 120 ppm higher, than at any time, in the last 650,000 years, and when somebody notices CO2 forced all the cycles of warming and cooling, about 100,000 years long, you guys have some kind of issue, which denies the greenhouse effect exists.

The problem with your argument is that nobody "noticed" that. The rise in the concentration of CO2 came after the onset of the warm periods, not before.

How does it feel to be so damn stupid?

You are the one that needs to answer that question, Pattycake. The scientists that study climate and the glacial periods have answered why that was so many times. And there answers have been posted here many times. That you keep making this ignorant statement and question is simply the indication of the depth of your ignorance.

How to explain Milankovitch cycles to a hostile Congressman in 30 seconds

 

[bobgnote]

At the skepticalscience website, starting with the link O.R. posted, Professor Richard Alley of PSU gets on vids, and if you haven't seen a vid of Professor Alley, get to them, since this guy is lucid, and his media is the shizzle.

The following graphs are offered:

"Realist" final frame:

"Skeptics" final frame:

I don't know why the skeptic-graph has a drop, at the last part of the plot. I also don't know why the escalator theory disproves realism, since the staggered analysis shows how temperature rise is slowly accelerating, not in a classical, constant acceleration, but in a gradual trend, which is liable to peak, once GHG emissions and out-gassing have peaked:

One of the most common misunderstandings amongst climate "skeptics" is the difference between short-term noise and long-term signal. In fact, "it hasn't warmed since 1998" is ninth on the list of most-used climate myths, and "it's cooling" is fifth.

This myth stems from a lack of understanding of exactly what global warming is. The term refers to the long-term warming of the global climate, usually measured over a timescale of about 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization. This is because global warming is caused by a global energy imbalance - something causing the Earth to retain more heat, such as an increase in solar radiation reaching the surface, or an increased greenhouse effect.

*

As we discussed in Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1, it's a very common mistake - even amongst some climate scientists - to confuse short-term climate noise with long-term global warming signal.

-------------------------

Hmmm. I think what will happen is temperatures will continue to increase, chasing GHG concentrations, which have not peaked. GHGs include a lot of freshly out-gassed CH4, which can use up the OH- ions, which help break down the CH4. So the rise in temperatures is actually accelerating warming, disguised by peaks, such as the high atmospheric temperature, in 1998.

So the step-theory seems useful, to explain how acceleration of warming is not reflected, in a constantly rising hockey stick, but rather in a series of up-turning sub-cycles, which are affected by a host of factors, including solar intensity, ENSO, and dissipation of heat, during melts.

The melting ice cools surrounding areas, even if overall temperatures are rising. So when a minor cooling trend shows up, and this happens (see Europe's freeze, Winter 2011), we need to explain this, since the overall trend is toward long-term warming, and right away, since the temperature must adjust, to the rampant out-gassing of CH4 and more CO2, from warming lands and waters.

The blog at ss.com explains solar cycles and ENSO can affect short-term temperature variations, which we all should realize. The Debunking Handbook claims the ratio of scientists endorsing global warming is more like 97%, rather than the 95%, which I have been posting, without argument.

I don't believe our generation will be still alive, when the acceleration of warming reverts, to simple warming. We for sure won't see the day temperature levels off, when the high concentrations of GHGs no longer affect the evolving, more universal, pole-to-pole, final temperature scheme.

WE ARE SEEING DIE-OFFS, so we will see, who gets to live. We will see who survives habitat-destruction, from intensifying storms, floods, droughts, wildfires, desertification, and oceanic trauma.

 

[flacaltenn]

So when somebody notices the CO2 concentration is 120 ppm higher, than at any time, in the last 650,000 years, and when somebody notices CO2 forced all the cycles of warming and cooling, about 100,000 years long, you guys have some kind of issue, which denies the greenhouse effect exists.

The problem with your argument is that nobody "noticed" that. The rise in the concentration of CO2 came after the onset of the warm periods, not before.

How does it feel to be so damn stupid?

You are the one that needs to answer that question, Pattycake. The scientists that study climate and the glacial periods have answered why that was so many times. And there answers have been posted here many times. That you keep making this ignorant statement and question is simply the indication of the depth of your ignorance.

How to explain Milankovitch cycles to a hostile Congressman in 30 seconds

All I saw was a professor talking down to folks that were pressing him for technical details.

Pretty dam convienient MAGIC to declare that SOLAR effects override CO2 effects in the historical record when the temperature doesn't obey your theory.. But then declare that EVEN THOUGH we have a 300 yr verification of increased TSI --- THAT doesn't matter today..

Furthermore -- his bald head example doesn't relate DIRECTLY to the one HOLY number of Global Mean Temperature that is at the heart of this controversy.. We've never measured that accurately during a Milankovich shift -- but my guess is some places get warmer, some get colder. So much for sun-burned bald heads eh? THat's MUCH different than a TSI increase of 1w/m2 over the last couple centuries -- isn't it Roxie?


I don't many folks ANYWHERE that are denying that it's warming.. Certainly not me. But I'll be damned if I'll sit by and watch the scientific process to determine the CAUSE of the warming get captured by the anti-progress, anti-growth shills for Green Crap...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

DE BILT, the Netherlands - While the 2003 heatwave might rate a distinct entry in the record books, it hardly is the most severe summer to ever strike the Netherlands. Modern Dutch man, with his continued quest to ‘seek the sun’, is quite capable of dealing with the solar onslaught. In fact, most people considered the Summer of 2003 to be quite pleasant.
Heatwaves in earlier days, not unlike other harsh weather phenomenons, were more intrusive, and often disastrous. These days, many cars and office buildings have air conditioning, beverages are stored in fridges and ice cream makers are a growth industry. Consider the situation in earlier times when 35 degree temperatures or higher resulted in spoiled food and milk, and danger of fire everywhere.
That concludes historical geographer and retired science teacher Jan Buisman, who has dedicated much of his life to recording, investigating and analysing extreme weather conditions. Exact information on the weather in the Netherlands has been recorded since 1706.
Weather chronicler relates of medieval disasters » The Windmill news articles » goDutch

 

[bobgnote]

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

Also at skepticalscience.com are useful explanations, of how solar intensity shifts or orbital shifts sometimes precede temperature changes, which may precede changes in CO2 levels, but most of the temperature changes happen AFTER the level of CO2 changes.

Ten indicators of global temperature:

Global cooling - Is global warming still happening?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

They couldn't get it right in the 70's when they said we were going into a new Ice Age then they change and went Climate change so they could say we were right the climate is changing. Well I agree it does it 4 times a year
It's call Spring summer fall winter and back to spring

 

[bobgnote]

All I saw was a professor talking down to folks that were pressing him for technical details.

Pretty dam convienient MAGIC to declare that SOLAR effects override CO2 effects in the historical record when the temperature doesn't obey your theory.. But then declare that EVEN THOUGH we have a 300 yr verification of increased TSI --- THAT doesn't matter today..

Furthermore -- his bald head example doesn't relate DIRECTLY to the one HOLY number of Global Mean Temperature that is at the heart of this controversy.. We've never measured that accurately during a Milankovich shift -- but my guess is some places get warmer, some get colder. So much for sun-burned bald heads eh? THat's MUCH different than a TSI increase of 1w/m2 over the last couple centuries -- isn't it Roxie?


I don't many folks ANYWHERE that are denying that it's warming.. Certainly not me. But I'll be damned if I'll sit by and watch the scientific process to determine the CAUSE of the warming get captured by the anti-progress, anti-growth shills for Green Crap...

Does anyone not see, why people like Nicholas DDDrapela have to be released, from any Peter Principle-proving job, they scam into?

Does anyone not see, who looked at the skepticalscience.com or another website, with Dana Rohrabacher on video, how Rohrabacher is an asshole? Does anyone not see, Rohrabacher interrupts anybody, even a professor, like Richard Alley, like a maniac with a car running or a chainsaw, in hand, and then he needs somebody, to graphically illustrate what cars or chainsaws do, TO HIS STUPID FACE, since he won't understand simultaneous release of sequestered CO2 and reduction of CO2 metabolism?

Does anyone who reads or posts to this thread have a problem understanding how CARS and CHAINSAWS have accelerated GHG concentrations? Yeah because look at all the usual fucktards, posting.

Does anyone who reads or posts here fail, to understand how atmospheric molecules of three atoms or more contribute, to the greenhouse effect, or the planet would be much cooler? Yeah, Fatass, buttpunk9643, CrosstardPunk, DaveDDD, bigretardedqueenofcalinkey, sucksassandballs, and assorted other really stupid white boys do the epic fail.

Does anybody not see, how the bath-houses had to CLOSE DOWN, FOREVER, after all kinds of maniacs tricked and shot speed, like sucksassandballs getting freaky, so they shoved their dose, of HIV, all the way, through AIDS, to death? Same shit, different day, re global warming denial.

I had to edit this, since who could forget stupid, wingpunk-fucktards, like Turdsterbugger and Pig Shitz? Who could forget Oddball posting "0" instead of "O," to give sucksassandballs a clue, and then Oddball posts the late Grandpa Jones on HeeHaw, instead of science? Who could forget Meister, showing what happens, when white boys let the force wander, between settings, on STUPID and CRAZY, to CRAZY and STUPID?

Who could forget girlie-retards, like PopoC-word and Tiny Shitter?

Right when you think they need the dark side to cross-breed with them, naaah! Don't make kids, DDDs.

Who could forget Gomer and Goober making test-tube babies, to plague Andy Griffith, who just died, but now they're crawling around, like little zombie-retards, plaguing the mud-races and everybody else who plays hoop?

At least Queer Fartbag admits he's "gay, and stupid."

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So when somebody notices the CO2 concentration is 120 ppm higher, than at any time, in the last 650,000 years, and when somebody notices CO2 forced all the cycles of warming and cooling, about 100,000 years long, you guys have some kind of issue, which denies the greenhouse effect exists.

The problem with your argument is that nobody "noticed" that. The rise in the concentration of CO2 came after the onset of the warm periods, not before.

How does it feel to be so damn stupid?

You are the one that needs to answer that question, Pattycake. The scientists that study climate and the glacial periods have answered why that was so many times. And there answers have been posted here many times. That you keep making this ignorant statement and question is simply the indication of the depth of your ignorance.

How to explain Milankovitch cycles to a hostile Congressman in 30 seconds

CO2 lags the warming.

 

[bobgnote]

When you are Jesus or Brian Terry, fucktards use your image. Shit, stay alive, dudes. Prevent the deeply demented, from copping a feel, on your corpse!

How to explain Milankovitch cycles to a hostile Congressman in 30 seconds

CO2 lags the warming.

What are you trying to prove, Crosstard? Proxy data lags are explainable, since solar and rotational cycles cause anomalies, but CO2 FORCES the warming, generally.

Does O.R. have to find a site, featuring how to explain reading, to retards?

 

[Katzndogz]

Maybe if we try real hard we can resurrect the hole in the ozone layer hysteria.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

maybe if we try real hard we can resurrect the hole in the ozone layer hysteria.

5,4,3,2,1........

 

[flacaltenn]

The problem with your argument is that nobody "noticed" that. The rise in the concentration of CO2 came after the onset of the warm periods, not before.

How does it feel to be so damn stupid?

You are the one that needs to answer that question, Pattycake. The scientists that study climate and the glacial periods have answered why that was so many times. And there answers have been posted here many times. That you keep making this ignorant statement and question is simply the indication of the depth of your ignorance.

How to explain Milankovitch cycles to a hostile Congressman in 30 seconds

CO2 lags the warming.

Sometimes -- and only if you believe the time accuracy of the ice cores and tree rings and bug parts that gave us those graphs. There are about as many times (thru the ice ages) that it leads as the number of times it lags..

I personally doubt that the time alignment of ALL those independent proxies are good enough to determine the "leader" on every cycle..

 

[flacaltenn]

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

Also at skepticalscience.com are useful explanations, of how solar intensity shifts or orbital shifts sometimes precede temperature changes, which may precede changes in CO2 levels, but most of the temperature changes happen AFTER the level of CO2 changes.

Ten indicators of global temperature:

Global cooling - Is global warming still happening?

Your 1st link to SkepticalScience does NOTHING to explain the occurences where CO2 lags behind temperature.. Just handwaving and obfuscation about feedbacks. There are places in that graph where CO2 IS NOT RISING -- just sitting at relative max -- whilst temperatures are doing a dive. No feedback apparent.

I would even propose that the ENTIRE GRAPH is f'ed because that's largely a period of ICE ages where the feedback would act much differently than today. You get much different feedbacks when the earth is covered with glaciers and oceans are frozen over.

But I DO congratulate you for finally seeing where the places are in that graph that DO NOT support CO2 as the principal driver of Global Temperature.. AttaBoy Gollum...

 

[bobgnote]

When we go over a graph, on the order of 450,000 years, and the CO2 is steadier, while the temperature zigs and zags, showing a greater variance, in all cases, but which follows the CO2, in all important turnarounds, we have confirmation, how the greenhouse effect is connected to CO2, which forces temperature.

When we find an isolated lead, by temperature, and I didn't find that, skepticalscience did it, and when they link it to a shift in solar intensity, that is their work. If you want to go over a time period, where you claim CO2 lags temperature, you need to get a link or a graph, since whenever you do that, you fucked up, Fatass. You and your posse are plain shitheads, no more.

If you are in a group of shitheads, you all drive shit, but none of you makes any damn sense, Fatass.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

When we go over a graph, on the order of 450,000 years, and the CO2 is steadier, while the temperature zigs and zags, showing a greater variance, in all cases, but which follows the CO2, in all important turnarounds, we have confirmation, how the greenhouse effect is connected to CO2, which forces temperature.

When we find an isolated lead, by temperature, and I didn't find that, skepticalscience did it, and when they link it to a shift in solar intensity, that is their work. If you want to go over a time period, where you claim CO2 lags temperature, you need to get a link or a graph, since whenever you do that, you fucked up, Fatass. You and your posse are plain shitheads, no more.

If you are in a group of shitheads, you all drive shit, but none of you makes any damn sense, Fatass.

Have you been sent here to save us from ourselves?

 

[flacaltenn]

His mission is to deliver the message that hemp solves everything... He was sent here apparently by the major oil companies to disgust and annoy and give the Green Movement a worse image.

 

[Old Rocks]

They couldn't get it right in the 70's when they said we were going into a new Ice Age then they change and went Climate change so they could say we were right the climate is changing. Well I agree it does it 4 times a year
It's call Spring summer fall winter and back to spring

Oh my, here we go again. Another cretin repeating that idiocy. What rock did you crawl out from under back in them thar hills, bro?

The majority, by about a 6 to 1 margin, of scientists in the '70's were predicting warming, not an ice age.

 

[Old Rocks]

The problem with your argument is that nobody "noticed" that. The rise in the concentration of CO2 came after the onset of the warm periods, not before.

How does it feel to be so damn stupid?

You are the one that needs to answer that question, Pattycake. The scientists that study climate and the glacial periods have answered why that was so many times. And there answers have been posted here many times. That you keep making this ignorant statement and question is simply the indication of the depth of your ignorance.

How to explain Milankovitch cycles to a hostile Congressman in 30 seconds

All I saw was a professor talking down to folks that were pressing him for technical details.

Pretty dam convienient MAGIC to declare that SOLAR effects override CO2 effects in the historical record when the temperature doesn't obey your theory.. But then declare that EVEN THOUGH we have a 300 yr verification of increased TSI --- THAT doesn't matter today..

Furthermore -- his bald head example doesn't relate DIRECTLY to the one HOLY number of Global Mean Temperature that is at the heart of this controversy.. We've never measured that accurately during a Milankovich shift -- but my guess is some places get warmer, some get colder. So much for sun-burned bald heads eh? THat's MUCH different than a TSI increase of 1w/m2 over the last couple centuries -- isn't it Roxie?


I don't many folks ANYWHERE that are denying that it's warming.. Certainly not me. But I'll be damned if I'll sit by and watch the scientific process to determine the CAUSE of the warming get captured by the anti-progress, anti-growth shills for Green Crap...

In other words, you will be damned if you will stand by and let anyone tell you that something is differant than the way you think they 'ought to be'.

And it is only in the last decade that people like you would admit that it is warming. In fact, there are still a bunch on this board that are stating that it has been cooling since 1998.

The scientific process that has determined the cause of the warming is available for anyone with any kind of scientific training to read and understand.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

We have had a good understanding of the effects of GHGs in the atmosphere since 1896. Virtually the whole of the scientific community points this out. There is not one Scientific Society, not one National Academy of Science, and not one major University that contests the fact of AGW. So what you are stating is that nearly every scientist in every nation, irregardless of politics or culture, is in on some kind of conspiracy to slow or stop progress. Nice little tinfoil hat you have

As the effects of the increasing warmth in the atmosphere and ocean mount, and we lose more crops, people are going to begin to appreciate what your kind of 'progess' truly means.

 

[Old Rocks]

Make Hay With Corn In Heat Wave Of 2012 - Forbes

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s forecast for July calls for continued hot and dry and that is resulting falling corn crop forecasts. Even though the USDA continues to forecast a total yield of 14.8 billion bushels of corn, private sector firms such as Allendale, Inc. see the crop looking more like 12.9 billion bushels if the bad weather continues.

That potential corn supply problem is compounded by two things. First, the USDA reported that corn stockpiles as of June 1 fell 48% from March 1 to 3.15 billion bushels, the lowest level since 2004. Second, the demand for corn continues to grow due to a combination of exports, livestock feed and ethanol production according to the National Corn Growers Association.