The global warming thread. Is it for real?

[PMZ]

I know that your main contribution here is to find statistics that are meant to deny the obvious, but all of the big picture data still says that you continue to be denied what you wish was true.


Tornadoes of 2013 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki? Really? Wiki? I am laughing in your sock puppet face. As evidence to support your claim, you reference one of the few places more corrupt than GISS. The conversation is over sock...You lose.

I told you he's a troll. There are a bunch of them so I am monitoring but otherwise ignoring their collective posts, I think it's just one ididot but who knows. They are as unethical as they come so attempting to debate them is useless. Best to concentrate on those who are at least authentic people.

Really? This is all you've got? I expected more.

 

[PMZ]

Global warming is a global scam, perpetrated by the so-called global elite which is then packaged and delivered by their poster boy Al Gore, and sold to all the gullible people around the world.

Any link to support your claim? so far, at least by the evidence provided in this thread global warming seems very real.

That such global waring is produced by man or that it can be controlled by changing our way of producing energy is still VERY debatable. The warming itself ... not really. But then again , feel free to post your links . I'm sure they will be very interesting.

You want to see a link to support my claim? How about three links?

Blog: Global warming 'scientific consensus' debunked

Global Warming Hoax Finally Falling Apart

Don’t believe the natural global warming stuff; it’s global elitesDon’t believe the natural global warming stuff; it’s global elites

The two main points of what Global Warming / Climate Change is really about is money and to de-industrialize the world. Like I said before, Global Warming is a Global Scam.

Tell us who wins what by de-industrializing the world. Whatever that means.

I'll tell you who wins by ignoring and denying the science that has proven AGW. Big oil. They bought your mind and you never felt a thing sitting there in the Lazy Boy with the brewski, did you.

Next life pay more attention in school and less to 24/7/365 political advertising. That way you'll be able to contribute to humanity rather than detract.

 

[gslack]

I told you he's a troll. There are a bunch of them so I am monitoring but otherwise ignoring their collective posts, I think it's just one ididot but who knows. They are as unethical as they come so attempting to debate them is useless. Best to concentrate on those who are at least authentic people.

Are any of them authentic people? I know lots of people of all political stripes, but in all my life I haven't met any that are actually "like" these warmer muppets we have around here. These are the least authentic people I have ever run across in my life. I know you can only be so authentic when you are just words on a page, but even words on a page project a personality of sorts and these warmer sorts on this board don't project anything but tight assed frustration and hate. Hardly the attributes of authentic people.

I agree. I come from a rather large family of 13 siblings. We have all types of personalities and political leanings, some I consider extremes and some moderates. Many of the most extreme are from the multitude of nieces, nephews and cousins, while most of my actual siblings are either liberal or progressive. Only a few true conservatives, and only one Rush/Hanity fan. Hell we even have a few 700 club members and some who get all their news from MSNBC and of course it shows.

In all of that mess, I haven't found a single person as completely false as the sock company we have here. Even the most extreme moonbats I know outside my family and friends are more genuine than these people.

 

[PMZ]

The legal system decides some things based on the concept of preponderance of evidence. Stronger evidence that this is true, weaker evidence that that is true.

If we were to turn the existance and consequences of AGW into a trial based on the preponderance of evidence, the outcome would be unequivocal. There really is no evidence supporting the case of it not existing. None. Not a shred. But would that stop a lawyer, being paid enough, to not take that side? Not for a moment.

If you're being paid enough who cares about right and wrong?

But, what if the consequences of the decision had life and death implications for mankind? Even the shadiest of counselers would give that some thought.

In real life it is surprisingly easy to get uneducated folks to take that denial position. Lie to them 24/7/365, pat them on the head for not falling for the truth, give them a common enemy to blame, throw in a couple of closet monsters, and they're yours.

Sad, but true.

Big tobacco did it for decades with much less compelling advertising.

Big oil has one objective. Profit from every ounce of oil, plus other fossil fuels, until the last drop is extracted. That won't happen if mankind realizes the cost of disposing of the waste from every one of those drops. So the stakes are huge. Monumental.

As a business they have one objective. Make more money despite the cost to others.

You do the math.

 

[westwall]

Wiki? Really? Wiki? I am laughing in your sock puppet face. As evidence to support your claim, you reference one of the few places more corrupt than GISS. The conversation is over sock...You lose.

I told you he's a troll. There are a bunch of them so I am monitoring but otherwise ignoring their collective posts, I think it's just one ididot but who knows. They are as unethical as they come so attempting to debate them is useless. Best to concentrate on those who are at least authentic people.

Really? This is all you've got? I expected more.

You're not worth the time or the effort. Trolls aren't. Goodbye troll.

 

[PMZ]

I told you he's a troll. There are a bunch of them so I am monitoring but otherwise ignoring their collective posts, I think it's just one ididot but who knows. They are as unethical as they come so attempting to debate them is useless. Best to concentrate on those who are at least authentic people.

Are any of them authentic people? I know lots of people of all political stripes, but in all my life I haven't met any that are actually "like" these warmer muppets we have around here. These are the least authentic people I have ever run across in my life. I know you can only be so authentic when you are just words on a page, but even words on a page project a personality of sorts and these warmer sorts on this board don't project anything but tight assed frustration and hate. Hardly the attributes of authentic people.

I agree. I come from a rather large family of 13 siblings. We have all types of personalities and political leanings, some I consider extremes and some moderates. Many of the most extreme are from the multitude of nieces, nephews and cousins, while most of my actual siblings are either liberal or progressive. Only a few true conservatives, and only one Rush/Hanity fan. Hell we even have a few 700 club members and some who get all their news from MSNBC and of course it shows.

In all of that mess, I haven't found a single person as completely false as the sock company we have here. Even the most extreme moonbats I know outside my family and friends are more genuine than these people.

If you are a prime example of humanity, I demand a species change.

 

[PMZ]

I told you he's a troll. There are a bunch of them so I am monitoring but otherwise ignoring their collective posts, I think it's just one ididot but who knows. They are as unethical as they come so attempting to debate them is useless. Best to concentrate on those who are at least authentic people.

Really? This is all you've got? I expected more.

You're not worth the time or the effort. Trolls aren't. Goodbye troll.

Goodbye, idiot.

 

[CultureCitizen]

You want to see a link to support my claim? How about three links?

Blog: Global warming 'scientific consensus' debunked

Global Warming Hoax Finally Falling Apart

Don’t believe the natural global warming stuff; it’s global elitesDon’t believe the natural global warming stuff; it’s global elites

The two main points of what Global Warming / Climate Change is really about is money and to de-industrialize the world. Like I said before, Global Warming is a Global Scam.

Thanks.

The first link is just a comment on a survey among scientist about their opinion on global warming. Not very usefull . Particularly, because it is on "anthropogenic global warming" . For the purpose of this thread I am just discussing "global warming" . Finding out if such warming is caused by man or not is too polemic.

In the second link the author of the article claims
"Often focused on century-long trends, most climate models failed to predict that the temperature rise would slow, starting around 2000. Scientists are now intent on figuring out the causes and determining whether the respite will be brief or a more lasting phenomenon."

That's really an interesting statement , though , he did not provide a single reference to proove his claim , so I had to do my own research .

First I found this article to support his statement:
Global Warming? Temperature Up 'Very Close to Zero' Over 15 Years | CNS News

Then I found this other article which states the temperature rise is hidden below the sea surface.
Warming over the last decade hidden below ocean surface

Your third article... oh , give me a break . Chemtrails ? really ? I can't really take this article seriously.

 

[flacaltenn]

You want to see a link to support my claim? How about three links?

Blog: Global warming 'scientific consensus' debunked

Global Warming Hoax Finally Falling Apart

Don’t believe the natural global warming stuff; it’s global elitesDon’t believe the natural global warming stuff; it’s global elites

The two main points of what Global Warming / Climate Change is really about is money and to de-industrialize the world. Like I said before, Global Warming is a Global Scam.

Thanks.

The first link is just a comment on a survey among scientist about their opinion on global warming. Not very usefull . Particularly, because it is on "anthropogenic global warming" . For the purpose of this thread I am just discussing "global warming" . Finding out if such warming is caused by man or not is too polemic.

In the second link the author of the article claims
"Often focused on century-long trends, most climate models failed to predict that the temperature rise would slow, starting around 2000. Scientists are now intent on figuring out the causes and determining whether the respite will be brief or a more lasting phenomenon."

That's really an interesting statement , though , he did not provide a single reference to proove his claim , so I had to do my own research .

First I found this article to support his statement:
Global Warming? Temperature Up 'Very Close to Zero' Over 15 Years | CNS News

Then I found this other article which states the temperature rise is hidden below the sea surface.
Warming over the last decade hidden below ocean surface

Your third article... oh , give me a break . Chemtrails ? really ? I can't really take this article seriously.

So it was "hidden below the ocean surface eh?" Actually -- that's quite plausible.. Whats not plausible is that the climate study community is too stupid to include the thermal time constants of the ocean in their flawed models...

No excuse for the hype and hysteria based on so little actual rigorous science.. If the projections were for 1degC rise this century (as it probably should be) -- then this whole topic would be a snooze with no real reason to sweat.. But when you INVENT 6degC this century --- you'd better be sure important factors that can cause a 12 year hiatus in warming are part of your modeling..

 

[CultureCitizen]

You want to see a link to support my claim? How about three links?

Blog: Global warming 'scientific consensus' debunked

Global Warming Hoax Finally Falling Apart

Don’t believe the natural global warming stuff; it’s global elitesDon’t believe the natural global warming stuff; it’s global elites

The two main points of what Global Warming / Climate Change is really about is money and to de-industrialize the world. Like I said before, Global Warming is a Global Scam.

Thanks.

The first link is just a comment on a survey among scientist about their opinion on global warming. Not very usefull . Particularly, because it is on "anthropogenic global warming" . For the purpose of this thread I am just discussing "global warming" . Finding out if such warming is caused by man or not is too polemic.

In the second link the author of the article claims
"Often focused on century-long trends, most climate models failed to predict that the temperature rise would slow, starting around 2000. Scientists are now intent on figuring out the causes and determining whether the respite will be brief or a more lasting phenomenon."

That's really an interesting statement , though , he did not provide a single reference to proove his claim , so I had to do my own research .

First I found this article to support his statement:
Global Warming? Temperature Up 'Very Close to Zero' Over 15 Years | CNS News

Then I found this other article which states the temperature rise is hidden below the sea surface.
Warming over the last decade hidden below ocean surface

Your third article... oh , give me a break . Chemtrails ? really ? I can't really take this article seriously.

So it was "hidden below the ocean surface eh?" Actually -- that's quite plausible.. Whats not plausible is that the climate study community is too stupid to include the thermal time constants of the ocean in their flawed models...

No excuse for the hype and hysteria based on so little actual rigorous science.. If the projections were for 1degC rise this century (as it probably should be) -- then this whole topic would be a snooze with no real reason to sweat.. But when you INVENT 6degC this century --- you'd better be sure important factors that can cause a 12 year hiatus in warming are part of your modeling..

Though I do believe global warming is occurring and glaciars continue to melt in spite of the aforementioned hiatus, I have made no such claim as "6degC this century"

For the time being lets just wait how the melting season ends in Greenland, it has a weird behaviour this year. We'll have to wait untill the end of the melting season to see if this year's melting will surpass the record melting from 2012.

 

[gslack]

Are any of them authentic people? I know lots of people of all political stripes, but in all my life I haven't met any that are actually "like" these warmer muppets we have around here. These are the least authentic people I have ever run across in my life. I know you can only be so authentic when you are just words on a page, but even words on a page project a personality of sorts and these warmer sorts on this board don't project anything but tight assed frustration and hate. Hardly the attributes of authentic people.

I agree. I come from a rather large family of 13 siblings. We have all types of personalities and political leanings, some I consider extremes and some moderates. Many of the most extreme are from the multitude of nieces, nephews and cousins, while most of my actual siblings are either liberal or progressive. Only a few true conservatives, and only one Rush/Hanity fan. Hell we even have a few 700 club members and some who get all their news from MSNBC and of course it shows.

In all of that mess, I haven't found a single person as completely false as the sock company we have here. Even the most extreme moonbats I know outside my family and friends are more genuine than these people.

If you are a prime example of humanity, I demand a species change.

Yes a brilliant idea, I'm sure the general intelligence levels of all other baboons will rise with your leaving. And their butts may not be quite so red either...

 

[SSDD]

I know that your main contribution here is to find statistics that are meant to deny the obvious, but all of the big picture data still says that you continue to be denied what you wish was true.


Tornadoes of 2013 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maybe you didn't notice the graph from NOAA that clearly shows that the number of tornadoes here is considerably less than normal...not even in the 25th percentile. Maybe you just don't know how to read a graph.

Are you going to tell the people of Oklahoma City that they're having a great year?

Compared to the average year, yes. You made the claim that warming caused MORE tornados. Even your own source says that claim is false regardless of your self aggrandizing prattle.

The slight temperature increase has resulted in fewer tornados, shorter and less intense droughts, fewer wildfires, fewer hurricanes, and fewer floods. All exactly the opposite of warmist predictions.

 

[Old Rocks]

I told you he's a troll. There are a bunch of them so I am monitoring but otherwise ignoring their collective posts, I think it's just one ididot but who knows. They are as unethical as they come so attempting to debate them is useless. Best to concentrate on those who are at least authentic people.

Are any of them authentic people? I know lots of people of all political stripes, but in all my life I haven't met any that are actually "like" these warmer muppets we have around here. These are the least authentic people I have ever run across in my life. I know you can only be so authentic when you are just words on a page, but even words on a page project a personality of sorts and these warmer sorts on this board don't project anything but tight assed frustration and hate. Hardly the attributes of authentic people.

I agree. I come from a rather large family of 13 siblings. We have all types of personalities and political leanings, some I consider extremes and some moderates. Many of the most extreme are from the multitude of nieces, nephews and cousins, while most of my actual siblings are either liberal or progressive. Only a few true conservatives, and only one Rush/Hanity fan. Hell we even have a few 700 club members and some who get all their news from MSNBC and of course it shows.

In all of that mess, I haven't found a single person as completely false as the sock company we have here. Even the most extreme moonbats I know outside my family and friends are more genuine than these people.

Speak for yourself, fruitloop

 

[Old Rocks]

Natural catastrophes and man-made disasters in 2012 | Swiss Re - Leading Global Reinsurer

2012 was dominated by large, weather-related losses in the US. Nine of the ten most expensive insured loss events happened in the US in 2012.[1] The high insurance penetration in North America meant that USD 65 billion, over half of the USD 119 billion in economic losses in the region, were covered by insurance.

Kurt Karl, Swiss Re's Chief Economist, says: "The severe weather-related events in the US provided a reminder of the value of insurance and the vital role it plays in helping individuals, communities and businesses to recover from the devastating effects of catastrophes. However, large parts of the globe that are prone to weather extremes were not able to rely on financial relief due to low insurance penetration."

Hurricane Sandy was the most expensive event for the year both in terms of economic and insured losses. The Hurricane caused an estimated total of USD 70 billion in economic losses, making it the second most damaging hurricane on record after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Insured losses were approximately USD 35 billion, out of which USD 20 to 25 billion were covered by the private insurance market.

The remaining insured losses were incurred by the National Flood Insurance Program. Losses stemmed from the largest ever wind span recorded for a North Atlantic hurricane, and from the ensuing massive storm surge that caused damaging flooding in a densely populated area on the East Coast of the US. It also led to the worst power outage caused by a natural catastrophe in the history of the US. Hurricane Sandy also struck the Caribbean and stretched as far north as Canada, thereby adding to the loss of lives and property.
.....................................................................................................

Highest ever recorded agricultural loss

Record heat and extremely dry weather conditions in the US led to one of the worst droughts in recent decades, affecting more than half of the country. Severe crop failures in the US Corn Belt resulted in insured agricultural losses of USD 11 billion, including pay-outs from the federal Multi-Peril Crop Insurance (MPCI) assistance program. This makes the 2012 drought the highest ever recorded loss in agriculture insurance. The record drought in the bread basket of the US highlighted the economic importance of insurance, supporting the economic survival of thousands of farmers.

 

[Old Rocks]

Crop Loss Fears Lift Agricultural Insurance Take-Up: Swiss Re | PropertyCasualty360

LONDON (Reuters) - Farmers have spent 20 percent more on agricultural insurance in recent years to protect against crop losses from increasingly frequent bad weather events, according to reinsurer Swiss Re.


The rise in extreme weather disasters, such as the widespread drought in the United States last year, has reduced food output at a time when the world's population is expected to grow by a third by 2050, the world's second biggest reinsurer said in a report on Wednesday.

Global agricultural insurers took in $23.5 billion in annual premiums in 2011, up by a fifth from 2005, in a market dominated by emerging countries, Swiss Re said.

 

[SSDD]

Hurricane Sandy was the most expensive event for the year both in terms of economic and insured losses. The Hurricane caused an estimated total of USD 70 billion in economic losses, making it the second most damaging hurricane on record after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Insured losses were approximately USD 35 billion, out of which USD 20 to 25 billion were covered by the private insurance market.

Hurricaine sandy was the hurricane that wasn't. You guys lose all your credibility calling sandy a superstorm when it barely even reached the level of tropical cyclone when it landed. The losses were due to a city that has been hit by storms before not being prepared for another one. Calling sandy a superstorm is nothing more than fear mongering to those who can't be bothered to take the time to actually look up the truth.

And your drought hysterics are no more than that as well. Actual science, as opposed to the insurance industry says that droughts in this "warmer" world are becoming less intense and shorter in duration...exactly the opposite of what your fear mongering masters have predicted with their failing models.

It is interesting how you have taken to consulting with the insurance companies regarding climate change...people who stand to make fortunes off threats of even minor bad weather. It is like asking the tobacco companies to make predictions on the future health of smokers.

 

[SSDD]

Crop Loss Fears Lift Agricultural Insurance Take-Up: Swiss Re | PropertyCasualty360

And there you have it. An industry that lives on fear using pseudoscience to generate more fear to make more money...and you support them...you worship at their altar.

The irony drips rocks....it literally drips.

 

[PMZ]

What if global warming isn't as severe as predicted?
By Rebecca Lindsey
August 3, 2010

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in their most recent report that global surface temperature at the end of this century will probably be between 1.8 and 4 degrees Celsius warmer than it was at the end of the last century.

It’s natural to question whether we and future generations will regret our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if it turns out global warming isn’t as bad as predicted. But the best science we have to guide us at this time indicates that the chance that warming will be much larger than the best estimate is greater than the chance that it will be much smaller.

Climate scientists know that there is plenty they don’t know about the way the Earth system works. Some of the physical processes that models describe are thoroughly well-established—the melting point of ice, for example, and the law of gravity.

Other physical processes are less perfectly known: when the air temperature is not far below 0 Celsius, for example, will water vapor condense into liquid or ice? Either is possible, depending on atmospheric conditions.

To understand how uncertainty about the underlying physics of the climate system affects climate predictions, scientists have a common test: they have a model predict what the average surface temperature would be if carbon dioxide concentrations were to double pre-industrial levels.

They run this simulation thousands of times, each time changing the starting assumptions of one or more processes. When they put all the predictions from these thousands of simulations onto a single graph, what they get is a picture of the most likely outcomes and the least likely outcomes.

The pattern that emerges from these types of tests is interesting. Few of the simulations result in less than 2 degrees of warming—near the low end of the IPCC estimates—but some result in significantly more than the 4 degrees at the high end of the IPCC estimates.

This pattern (statisticians call it a “right-skewed distribution&#8221 suggests that if carbon dioxide concentrations double, the probability of very large increases in temperature is greater than the probability of very small increases.

Our ability to predict the future climate is far from certain, but this type of research suggests that the question of whether global warming will turn out to be less severe than scientists think may be less relevant than whether it may be far worse.

Graph of results http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blo...-as-predicted/

 

[IanC]

What if global warming isn't as severe as predicted?
By Rebecca Lindsey
August 3, 2010

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in their most recent report that global surface temperature at the end of this century will probably be between 1.8 and 4 degrees Celsius warmer than it was at the end of the last century.

It’s natural to question whether we and future generations will regret our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if it turns out global warming isn’t as bad as predicted. But the best science we have to guide us at this time indicates that the chance that warming will be much larger than the best estimate is greater than the Chan that it will be much smaller.

Climate scientists know that there is plenty they don’t know about the way the Earth system works. Some of the physical processes that models describe are thoroughly well-established—the melting point of ice, for example, and the law of gravity.

Other physical processes are less perfectly known: when the air temperature is not far below 0 Celsius, for example, will water vapor condense into liquid or ice? Either is possible, depending on atmospheric conditions.

To understand how uncertainty about the underlying physics of the climate system affects climate predictions, scientists have a common test: they have a model predict what the average surface temperature would be if carbon dioxide concentrations were to double pre-industrial levels.

They run this simulation thousands of times, each time changing the starting assumptions of one or more processes. When they put all the predictions from these thousands of simulations onto a single graph, what they get is a picture of the most likely outcomes and the least likely outcomes.

The pattern that emerges from these types of tests is interesting. Few of the simulations result in less than 2 degrees of warming—near the low end of the IPCC estimates—but some result in significantly more than the 4 degrees at the high end of the IPCC estimates.

This pattern (statisticians call it a “right-skewed distribution&#8221 suggests that if carbon dioxide concentrations double, the probability of very large increases in temperature is greater than the probability of very small increases.

Our ability to predict the future climate is far from certain, but this type of research suggests that the question of whether global warming will turn out to be less severe than scientists think may be less relevant than whether it may be far worse.

Graph of results http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blo...-as-predicted/

Climate sensitivity estimates have been falling like a rock recently. The IPCC has already had to print a correction to the AR4 report on them. Many of the models still assume the larger estimates and it shows in their incorrect projections.

Edit- I retract my claim, at least temporarily, until I can find s link to support it.

 

[PMZ]

Hurricane Sandy was the most expensive event for the year both in terms of economic and insured losses. The Hurricane caused an estimated total of USD 70 billion in economic losses, making it the second most damaging hurricane on record after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Insured losses were approximately USD 35 billion, out of which USD 20 to 25 billion were covered by the private insurance market.

Hurricaine sandy was the hurricane that wasn't. You guys lose all your credibility calling sandy a superstorm when it barely even reached the level of tropical cyclone when it landed. The losses were due to a city that has been hit by storms before not being prepared for another one. Calling sandy a superstorm is nothing more than fear mongering to those who can't be bothered to take the time to actually look up the truth.

And your drought hysterics are no more than that as well. Actual science, as opposed to the insurance industry says that droughts in this "warmer" world are becoming less intense and shorter in duration...exactly the opposite of what your fear mongering masters have predicted with their failing models.

It is interesting how you have taken to consulting with the insurance companies regarding climate change...people who stand to make fortunes off threats of even minor bad weather. It is like asking the tobacco companies to make predictions on the future health of smokers.

We elect you to tell those affected by Sandy that their damage was all in their minds.

The Flat Earth Society is not a new thing. Centuries old actually.

Fear mongering, is that what you're doing? Trying to sell the fear of preparing for what science says is coming as overkill? Your fear. Easy to sell to those who don't believe in science, tough to those who do.