tied for hottest June in record history---Nasa.

[Old Rocks]

Temperatures by ANY Global measurement haven't risen by more 0.08degC/decade over the hiatus..

A lot of noise about 2 digits to the right of decimal right. Or didn't you know that??

I am going with this guy's opinions over yours based on his credentials as compared to yours
...I got to go to the GFDL - the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab - near Princeton, N.J. and interview the director, Jerry Mahlman. The GFDL was, and still is, one of the top climate research centers in the world. Remember, this was nearly 20 years ago. When I asked him about the global warming “debate," he said: “The debate on that is over.” He also said no one storm could be blamed on global warming. This all sounds pretty familiar, huh?

SO WHAT DOES “THE DEBATE IS OVER” MEAN?

Dr. Mahlman noticed the confused look on my face. Debate over? Mahlman said he was talking about theBASIC SCIENCEof global warming: that added carbon dioxide will (and has already) warmed the earth. That’s it. “We got past that years ago,” he said. Now we’re debating how much it will warm, just how cloud cover will affect warming, the effect of volcanoes-and oceans. There was a lot of stuff to debate back then -- and today, too.


Read more at Hurricane Schwartz Are you climate change rejector or acceptor

I agree -- CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it has warmed the Earth about 0.4degC in your lifetime. You and that Tyrant Mahlman got me... I GIVE UP -- you are BOTH RIGHT.. But right about a stinky Red Herring. Global Warming hysteria is based on 4 to 8degC by 2100.. That's where the original wager was laid on the table to SCARE folks. And LATELY, all that consensus of yours has backed WAAAAAY the fuck off of those numbers. You'd think all the panicked Chicken Littles would have gotten the retractions.. But obviously -- you haven't..........................

Right now you're in a thread arguing why the RATE of warming has slowed to damn near nothing over the past 14 years or so.. DESPITE -- setting new record levels of CO2..

Ocean storage has been occurring at approx the SAME RATE since 1960s. So why did the rate of warming go to damn near zero ?? Dr Malhman got an excuse for the failure of 99% of the IPCC predicted temps? Dr Mahlman gonna give you a NEW wild guess pulled from his ARSE about the temp anomaly in 2100?

Without that -- you're no longer gonna be able to panic the herd with these weirdo "the earth has a fever" Sesame Street level theatrics..

No, Flacaltenn, credible concern is not based on 4 to 8 degrees C. of warming. It is based on the fact that we really don't know what a 2 degree C warming will do. We already know that the warming we have already is melting the Arctic Sea Ice far faster than anybody, even the 'alarmists', predicted. We know that the most of the alpine glaciers are rapidly receding, and that the Ice Caps of Greenland and Anarctica are losing billions of tons of ice annually at an ever increasing rate. Just the decrease in albedo alone from this is reason for feedback concerns. We know that the permafrost is melting and emitting both CO2 and CH4, at an ever increasing rate. In other words, we are tickling the dragon, and have no idea when it will wake up.

 

[Old Rocks]

Take a look at that longer SLRise graph I posted. There was a big warmup in the late 30s -- early 40s.. If you look carefully -- you can see a bump in the level that extends out to about 1965.. This juvenile expectation that temperature and climate clues like ice respond instantaneously and LINEARLY correlated with CO2 (or anything else for that matter) -- is Sesame Street science..

There are also a large number of regular natural cycles. Most are Ocean related. Like ENSO and PDO and AMO.. But there are also patterns in equatorial pressure waves, MJO, arctic oscillations and even solar patterns.

These operate (mostly) independent of each other -- where their periods are not synchronized but randomly phased. Additions and subtractions of these effects occuring together can create forcings of different apparent shapes and sizes. Might not see that alignment for 200 yrs or more. Some alignments have REAL MEANING to one another.. Like the convergence of MJO and ENSO patterns produce above normal tropical storms.

ALL of this natural variation has been GREATLY understated.. Largely because there is no money to look into any Climate science that does not have a Man Made aspect to it... The UN IPCC Mission Statement specifically states -- they are only interested in MAN-MADE climate change. You get exactly what you pay for...

You are just plain wrong in this accusation of the scientists. And it reflects the general attitude of conservatives and 'Conservatives'. If the science does not agree with 'How things oughta be', ignore the science, or accuse the scientists of being stupid or corrupt.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'm convinced that global warming nutters cannot comprehend the meaning of the term "trace gas". They're just too fucking stupid.

And you can't comprehend the ability of that trace gas to block the ir radiation from being lost to space! Physics tells us that greenhouse gases hold in heat that would otherwise go back into space.

Take a science class before you call others stupid.

Bullshit. You're an idiot.

So you don't believe in physics. lol! haha

 

[mamooth]

Take a look at that longer SLRise graph I posted

Sure. The recent positive acceleration in sea level rise destroys your theory, as you theory says sea level rise should be having a negative acceleration.

And that why no actual scientist takes your theory seriously. It's contradicted by the data.

This juvenile expectation that temperature and climate clues like ice respond instantaneously and LINEARLY correlated with CO2 (or anything else for that matter) -- is Sesame Street science..

Then you should probably stop pushing that strawman, as you're basically the only one mentioning it.

 

[Muhammed]

I'm convinced that global warming nutters cannot comprehend the meaning of the term "trace gas". They're just too fucking stupid.

And you can't comprehend the ability of that trace gas to block the ir radiation from being lost to space! Physics tells us that greenhouse gases hold in heat that would otherwise go back into space.

Take a science class before you call others stupid.

Bullshit. You're an idiot.

So you don't believe in physics. lol! haha

I know more about physics than you will ever know. You're an illogical fool.

One thing most global warming alarmists have in common is the inability to think logically.

 

[jc456]

Temperatures by ANY Global measurement haven't risen by more 0.08degC/decade over the hiatus..

A lot of noise about 2 digits to the right of decimal right. Or didn't you know that??

I am going with this guy's opinions over yours based on his credentials as compared to yours
...I got to go to the GFDL - the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab - near Princeton, N.J. and interview the director, Jerry Mahlman. The GFDL was, and still is, one of the top climate research centers in the world. Remember, this was nearly 20 years ago. When I asked him about the global warming “debate," he said: “The debate on that is over.” He also said no one storm could be blamed on global warming. This all sounds pretty familiar, huh?

SO WHAT DOES “THE DEBATE IS OVER” MEAN?

Dr. Mahlman noticed the confused look on my face. Debate over? Mahlman said he was talking about theBASIC SCIENCEof global warming: that added carbon dioxide will (and has already) warmed the earth. That’s it. “We got past that years ago,” he said. Now we’re debating how much it will warm, just how cloud cover will affect warming, the effect of volcanoes-and oceans. There was a lot of stuff to debate back then -- and today, too.


Read more at Hurricane Schwartz Are you climate change rejector or acceptor

I agree -- CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it has warmed the Earth about 0.4degC in your lifetime. You and that Tyrant Mahlman got me... I GIVE UP -- you are BOTH RIGHT.. But right about a stinky Red Herring. Global Warming hysteria is based on 4 to 8degC by 2100.. That's where the original wager was laid on the table to SCARE folks. And LATELY, all that consensus of yours has backed WAAAAAY the fuck off of those numbers. You'd think all the panicked Chicken Littles would have gotten the retractions.. But obviously -- you haven't..........................

Right now you're in a thread arguing why the RATE of warming has slowed to damn near nothing over the past 14 years or so.. DESPITE -- setting new record levels of CO2..

Ocean storage has been occurring at approx the SAME RATE since 1960s. So why did the rate of warming go to damn near zero ?? Dr Malhman got an excuse for the failure of 99% of the IPCC predicted temps? Dr Mahlman gonna give you a NEW wild guess pulled from his ARSE about the temp anomaly in 2100?

Without that -- you're no longer gonna be able to panic the herd with these weirdo "the earth has a fever" Sesame Street level theatrics..

No, Flacaltenn, credible concern is not based on 4 to 8 degrees C. of warming. It is based on the fact that we really don't know what a 2 degree C warming will do. We already know that the warming we have already is melting the Arctic Sea Ice far faster than anybody, even the 'alarmists', predicted. We know that the most of the alpine glaciers are rapidly receding, and that the Ice Caps of Greenland and Anarctica are losing billions of tons of ice annually at an ever increasing rate. Just the decrease in albedo alone from this is reason for feedback concerns. We know that the permafrost is melting and emitting both CO2 and CH4, at an ever increasing rate. In other words, we are tickling the dragon, and have no idea when it will wake up.

Show us the graph that arctic ice is melting more today than 100 years ago.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Take a look at that longer SLRise graph I posted

Sure. The recent positive acceleration in sea level rise destroys your theory, as you theory says sea level rise should be having a negative acceleration.

And that why no actual scientist takes your theory seriously. It's contradicted by the data.

This juvenile expectation that temperature and climate clues like ice respond instantaneously and LINEARLY correlated with CO2 (or anything else for that matter) -- is Sesame Street science..

Then you should probably stop pushing that strawman, as you're basically the only one mentioning it.

Recent acceleration of sea level rise? Now that's a load of pure bull shit right there. physical measurements show less than 1.6mm/yr rise prior to 2004 and the last ten years show less than 0.6mm rise. And NASA has been adding 2.0mm/year telling us that it was a needed correction to satellite data which is not being reflected in real time physical measurements at over 160 tidal gauges all over the world.

 

[mamooth]

Billy, the gauges read _more_ sea level rise than the satellites. So as usual, your conspiracy go boom. Try to keep up with the basics.

Sea Level Climate Change US EPA

By the way, non-wusses don't have to constantly fake reasons to explain why all the data disagrees with their kook claims. You do.

Gauges, of course, are trickier to use than satellites to get a global average, because the land moves up and down at different rates in different places. The ocean basins are also slowly getting deeper, but that affects the satellite measurements as well.

 

[jc456]

Billy, the gauges read _more_ sea level rise than the satellites. So as usual, your conspiracy go boom. Try to keep up with the basics.

Sea Level Climate Change US EPA

By the way, non-wusses don't have to constantly fake reasons to explain why all the data disagrees with their kook claims. You do.

Gauges, of course, are trickier to use than satellites to get a global average, because the land moves up and down at different rates in different places. The ocean basins are also slowly getting deeper, but that affects the satellite measurements as well.

So, i asked before and never got a reply. Where's this rise happening at and why's it not making the news?

 

[mamooth]

You're surprised that your stupid, stupid questions don't get a reply?

You are expected to know the bare minimum before jumping into a discussion with the grownups. Instead of asking questions on the most basic topics, go find the answers yourself, being such answers are available everywhere. If you want my services as your personal tutor, a cash deposit in my Paypal account will be required up front.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Billy, the gauges read _more_ sea level rise than the satellites. So as usual, your conspiracy go boom. Try to keep up with the basics.

Sea Level Climate Change US EPA

By the way, non-wusses don't have to constantly fake reasons to explain why all the data disagrees with their kook claims. You do.

Gauges, of course, are trickier to use than satellites to get a global average, because the land moves up and down at different rates in different places. The ocean basins are also slowly getting deeper, but that affects the satellite measurements as well.

So, i asked before and never got a reply. Where's this rise happening at and why's it not making the news?

Because at the current rate of rise it would take over 4,000 years to make significant rise.

 

[jc456]

You're surprised that your stupid, stupid questions don't get a reply?

You are expected to know the bare minimum before jumping into a discussion with the grownups. Instead of asking questions on the most basic topics, go find the answers yourself, being such answers are available everywhere. If you want my services as your personal tutor, a cash deposit in my Paypal account will be required up front.

In otherwords you have no data. I didn't think you did. More hog wash panicking posts.

 

[mamooth]

The June temp anomaly map

Ruh-roh. The coolest spot is Antarctica, one of the least-well covered. So much for Ian's conspiracy theory that the least-well-covered areas are the hottest and skew the average.

Also, if you check Amundsen-scott base, recent temps there have been adjusted _down_ heavily since 2008.. Once more, reality gives a massive smackdown to denier conspiracy theories.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/products/stnplots/7/70089009000.gif

So, I wonder if Watts, JoNove and Homewood will report that scandal. You know, that the temps for huge tracts of Antarctica were adjusted down for recent temps, making the warming look smaller. Obviously, there is an organized conspiracy to make the warming look smaller.

 

[flacaltenn]

Take a look at that longer SLRise graph I posted

Sure. The recent positive acceleration in sea level rise destroys your theory, as you theory says sea level rise should be having a negative acceleration.

And that why no actual scientist takes your theory seriously. It's contradicted by the data.

This juvenile expectation that temperature and climate clues like ice respond instantaneously and LINEARLY correlated with CO2 (or anything else for that matter) -- is Sesame Street science..

Then you should probably stop pushing that strawman, as you're basically the only one mentioning it.

So -- you see an absolutely linear temperature response from CO2 forcing -- do you?

++ Patient is hallucinating...

 

[mamooth]

Flac, your posts are becoming increasingly incomprehensible.

 

[flacaltenn]

Temperatures by ANY Global measurement haven't risen by more 0.08degC/decade over the hiatus..

A lot of noise about 2 digits to the right of decimal right. Or didn't you know that??

I am going with this guy's opinions over yours based on his credentials as compared to yours
...I got to go to the GFDL - the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab - near Princeton, N.J. and interview the director, Jerry Mahlman. The GFDL was, and still is, one of the top climate research centers in the world. Remember, this was nearly 20 years ago. When I asked him about the global warming “debate," he said: “The debate on that is over.” He also said no one storm could be blamed on global warming. This all sounds pretty familiar, huh?

SO WHAT DOES “THE DEBATE IS OVER” MEAN?

Dr. Mahlman noticed the confused look on my face. Debate over? Mahlman said he was talking about theBASIC SCIENCEof global warming: that added carbon dioxide will (and has already) warmed the earth. That’s it. “We got past that years ago,” he said. Now we’re debating how much it will warm, just how cloud cover will affect warming, the effect of volcanoes-and oceans. There was a lot of stuff to debate back then -- and today, too.


Read more at Hurricane Schwartz Are you climate change rejector or acceptor

I agree -- CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it has warmed the Earth about 0.4degC in your lifetime. You and that Tyrant Mahlman got me... I GIVE UP -- you are BOTH RIGHT.. But right about a stinky Red Herring. Global Warming hysteria is based on 4 to 8degC by 2100.. That's where the original wager was laid on the table to SCARE folks. And LATELY, all that consensus of yours has backed WAAAAAY the fuck off of those numbers. You'd think all the panicked Chicken Littles would have gotten the retractions.. But obviously -- you haven't..........................

Right now you're in a thread arguing why the RATE of warming has slowed to damn near nothing over the past 14 years or so.. DESPITE -- setting new record levels of CO2..

Ocean storage has been occurring at approx the SAME RATE since 1960s. So why did the rate of warming go to damn near zero ?? Dr Malhman got an excuse for the failure of 99% of the IPCC predicted temps? Dr Mahlman gonna give you a NEW wild guess pulled from his ARSE about the temp anomaly in 2100?

Without that -- you're no longer gonna be able to panic the herd with these weirdo "the earth has a fever" Sesame Street level theatrics..

No, Flacaltenn, credible concern is not based on 4 to 8 degrees C. of warming. It is based on the fact that we really don't know what a 2 degree C warming will do. We already know that the warming we have already is melting the Arctic Sea Ice far faster than anybody, even the 'alarmists', predicted. We know that the most of the alpine glaciers are rapidly receding, and that the Ice Caps of Greenland and Anarctica are losing billions of tons of ice annually at an ever increasing rate. Just the decrease in albedo alone from this is reason for feedback concerns. We know that the permafrost is melting and emitting both CO2 and CH4, at an ever increasing rate. In other words, we are tickling the dragon, and have no idea when it will wake up.

SURE you know what 2degC warming will do.. It's been there in the EARLY Holocene.. And there was obviously a huge SeaLRise and climatic changes. But the Earth's climate didn't commit Kamikaze suicide over it and STABILIZED at about 280ppm CO2.. Or we wouldn't be pals today..

And the amount of ice to melt or calthrates to thaw LEFT NOW -- is a miniscule fraction of what existed during that period.. So if you DON'T get 2degC out of what's left of the 1st industrial era doubling by 2040 or so,, you might not even get the 2nd industrial era CO2 doubling til way AFTER 2100... Which means that all that panic that's been unleashed and won't go away --- is over much of nothing..

Main point is -- It's no where the press and govt cherry-picked MAXIMUM scenarios that bred this bitch of a rumor..

 

[Crick]

Main point is, it took thousands and thousands of years to make that change back then. We're going to do it in a couple of centuries, tops. Other point is that human civilization didn't exist back then. Today, we have billions of people living near coastlines, billions of people with marginal to poor food and drinking water supplies.

 

[flacaltenn]

Take a look at that longer SLRise graph I posted. There was a big warmup in the late 30s -- early 40s.. If you look carefully -- you can see a bump in the level that extends out to about 1965.. This juvenile expectation that temperature and climate clues like ice respond instantaneously and LINEARLY correlated with CO2 (or anything else for that matter) -- is Sesame Street science..

There are also a large number of regular natural cycles. Most are Ocean related. Like ENSO and PDO and AMO.. But there are also patterns in equatorial pressure waves, MJO, arctic oscillations and even solar patterns.

These operate (mostly) independent of each other -- where their periods are not synchronized but randomly phased. Additions and subtractions of these effects occuring together can create forcings of different apparent shapes and sizes. Might not see that alignment for 200 yrs or more. Some alignments have REAL MEANING to one another.. Like the convergence of MJO and ENSO patterns produce above normal tropical storms.

ALL of this natural variation has been GREATLY understated.. Largely because there is no money to look into any Climate science that does not have a Man Made aspect to it... The UN IPCC Mission Statement specifically states -- they are only interested in MAN-MADE climate change. You get exactly what you pay for...

You are just plain wrong in this accusation of the scientists. And it reflects the general attitude of conservatives and 'Conservatives'. If the science does not agree with 'How things oughta be', ignore the science, or accuse the scientists of being stupid or corrupt.

I know a govt sponsored feeding frenzy when I see one -- because I used to be shark.. FEEDING off the fears and knee-jerk reactions of the Grantors of Science in Wash DC. But in retrospect OldRocks.. That post you are responding to was supposed to be addressed to T-Sloth. I got the wrong mailbox.

You tailor your research to the AVAILABLE grants. And you leave the sponsor with a sense that they can trust you to produce WHAT THEY WANT to hear and field for public consumption.. So if the topic is MAN-MADE global warming -- you are gonna stoop enough to make the grantor happy.. Doesn't mean they don't retain SOME integrity and pride in their work -- in fact, at conferences we used to laugh with competitors about some of the horseshit contortions that were in the "Management Summary" of our reports or the "Abstract" of our papers..

 

[flacaltenn]

Flac, your posts are becoming increasingly incomprehensible.

Only because youre not capable of answering simple questions without GOOGLING..

 

[flacaltenn]

Main point is, it took thousands and thousands of years to make that change back then. We're going to do it in a couple of centuries, tops. Other point is that human civilization didn't exist back then. Today, we have billions of people living near coastlines, billions of people with marginal to poor food and drinking water supplies.

YOU dont know that. Because there were no networked thermometer stations capable of RECORDING even 100 year long spikes. If we see them today -- we can assume they existed since the climate "stabilized" out of the last Ice Age..

As I said (here or in another thread).. The amount of ice and calthrate left to melt TODAY is MINISCULE compared to what melting WITHOUT MAN in the early Holocene.. And yet -- there was no runaway GW. No Planetary suicide. The Atmos stabilized on it's own at 250ppm CO2.

What we've ADDED to the atmosphere is like OldRocks revered "grid scale battery" storage that smooths out the fluctuations from small hot and cold spikes. So it might take a couple decades LONGER to equilibrium.. Just like adding insulation to your house. Reduces the rate of LOSS -- but it doesn't HEAT it...