Uh-ooohh Spaghettios... the US in ten year cooling trend?

[skookerasbil]

The alarmists have embraced the utopian societies conveyed by Plato et. al..........somewhere along the way, they got intellectually bamboozled.

Part of their means of achieving those societies is via environmentalist gobblygook, like climate change. They'd have us all building emergency arks if they can scam enough people.........based upon THIS >>

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/clip_image011_thumb.jpg.html][/URL]


LAUGH..........MY..........BALLS...........OFF!!!!!

ghey

 

[jc456]

The alarmists have embraced the utopian societies conveyed by Plato et. al..........somewhere along the way, they got intellectually bamboozled.

Part of their means of achieving those societies is via environmentalist gobblygook, like climate change. They'd have us all building emergency arks if they can scam enough people.........based upon THIS >>




LAUGH..........MY..........BALLS...........OFF!!!!!

ghey

But don't you understand the atmosphere is very sensitive and that 1 degree change can set off any type of issue on the planet as far as weather. they know that because they ran experiments to prove it.

Oh wait....................................................oh no, no,no,no,no,no,no, they didn't, they never tested anything. All these knowledgeable scientists who sit at the right hand of God and they never ran one experiment!!!!!

Instead, they sat at the right hand of God and he told them, just project and predict and you're all good. No need for testing if the planet doesn't cooperate, merely fudge some numbers to match the projection and predictions. And there you go!!!!!!!

Skooks, this shit's just hilarious ain't it?

 

[jc456]

The world is warming, the lower 48 may have seen a slight decline in temperatures in the last decade, but if you include Alaska in the US, we have seen a marked rise in temperature.

it is, hmmmm and how do you know this? let's see where the global stations are at. Show us that link please.

 

[Porker]

Area of the continental US: 7,663,941.7 km2
Area of the Earth: 510,100,000 km2
RATIO: 1.5%

Where did the opening poster say anything about GLOBAL? I guess only when we (the USA) has disaster such as a deadly hurricane, tornadoes, a volcano eruption, isolated heat wave in Death Valley, CA or drought up and down the California coast can we scream GLOBAL WARMING?

At least that's what you goddamn Chicken Littles do.

 

[mamooth]

Most heavily recorded. And amazingly enough GLOBAL temps are just that. The claim that MWP was local to Europe is simply stupid

Actual proxy temperature data is such a stupid thing.

This is where Westwall now quotes his carefully cherrypicked studies from the "CO2 Science" crank website, sources that actually show the opposite of his claim.

If MWP was global, every proxy everywhere should show it for the whole MWP period. That doesn't happen. Not even remotely. Most proxies outside of northern Europe show no increase at any time during the MWP period.

A few proxies show a spike for a few years, each at very different time inside the MWP period. Westwall likes to cherrypick those studies and then pretend it proves the MWP was global. Nobody outside the cult falls for it, of course.

What could possibly keep a warm bubble over one spot of a spinning Earth?

The southwestern USA is consistently warmer than areas east or west of it. According to the Westwall theory, that's not possible, as the spinning earth would move the heat all over.

The same holds true for these temp records. Yes, the US is a small part of the globe, it is however part of the GLOBE and once again the claim that the US has a bubble of cold that somehow magically stays in one place is simply retarded.

Or for another example, we have Greenland, which is always much colder than areas east or west of it. Contrary to the Westwall Theory, the Earth does not have the same temperature around the globe at each latitude.

 

[Crick]

Bravo.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Most heavily recorded. And amazingly enough GLOBAL temps are just that. The claim that MWP was local to Europe is simply stupid

Actual proxy temperature data is such a stupid thing.

This is where Westwall now quotes his carefully cherrypicked studies from the "CO2 Science" crank website, sources that actually show the opposite of his claim.

If MWP was global, every proxy everywhere should show it for the whole MWP period. That doesn't happen. Not even remotely. Most proxies outside of northern Europe show no increase at any time during the MWP period.

A few proxies show a spike for a few years, each at very different time inside the MWP period. Westwall likes to cherrypick those studies and then pretend it proves the MWP was global. Nobody outside the cult falls for it, of course.

What could possibly keep a warm bubble over one spot of a spinning Earth?

The southwestern USA is consistently warmer than areas east or west of it. According to the Westwall theory, that's not possible, as the spinning earth would move the heat all over.

The same holds true for these temp records. Yes, the US is a small part of the globe, it is however part of the GLOBE and once again the claim that the US has a bubble of cold that somehow magically stays in one place is simply retarded.

Or for another example, we have Greenland, which is always much colder than areas east or west of it. Contrary to the Westwall Theory, the Earth does not have the same temperature around the globe at each latitude.

You dont have a fucking clue do you mantooth? Ocean circulations in conjunction with jet stream circulations change all climate. Greenland is cooler because the Deep Water Cold Return is prominent in the region.

Just like always we have to show where the liberal fallacy logic fails..

 

[edthecynic]

And amazingly enough GLOBAL temps are just that. The claim that MWP was local to Europe is simply stupid. What could possibly keep a warm bubble over one spot of a spinning Earth?

The same holds true for these temp records. Yes, the US is a small part of the globe, it is however part of the GLOBE and once again the claim that the US has a bubble of cold that somehow magically stays in one place is simply retarded.

You dont have a fucking clue do you mantooth? Ocean circulations in conjunction with jet stream circulations change all climate. Greenland is cooler because the Deep Water Cold Return is prominent in the region.

Just like always we have to show where the liberal fallacy logic fails..

You two fight it out!

 

[Billy_Bob]

And amazingly enough GLOBAL temps are just that. The claim that MWP was local to Europe is simply stupid. What could possibly keep a warm bubble over one spot of a spinning Earth?

The same holds true for these temp records. Yes, the US is a small part of the globe, it is however part of the GLOBE and once again the claim that the US has a bubble of cold that somehow magically stays in one place is simply retarded.

You dont have a fucking clue do you mantooth? Ocean circulations in conjunction with jet stream circulations change all climate. Greenland is cooler because the Deep Water Cold Return is prominent in the region.

Just like always we have to show where the liberal fallacy logic fails..

You two fight it out!

There is nothing to fight about.. Westwall is correct in his assessment as am I in mine. Pointing out that jet streams and the resulting high pressures and low pressure regions can stall but they do not last forever, is not inconsistent with our positions.

You failing to figure out how the earth systems are reacting to stimuli from other systems is priceless..

 

[skookerasbil]

The alarmists have embraced the utopian societies conveyed by Plato et. al..........somewhere along the way, they got intellectually bamboozled.

Part of their means of achieving those societies is via environmentalist gobblygook, like climate change. They'd have us all building emergency arks if they can scam enough people.........based upon THIS >>




LAUGH..........MY..........BALLS...........OFF!!!!!

ghey

But don't you understand the atmosphere is very sensitive and that 1 degree change can set off any type of issue on the planet as far as weather. they know that because they ran experiments to prove it.

Oh wait....................................................oh no, no,no,no,no,no,no, they didn't, they never tested anything. All these knowledgeable scientists who sit at the right hand of God and they never ran one experiment!!!!!

Instead, they sat at the right hand of God and he told them, just project and predict and you're all good. No need for testing if the planet doesn't cooperate, merely fudge some numbers to match the projection and predictions. And there you go!!!!!!!

Skooks, this shit's just hilarious ain't it?

Indeed it is hilarious...........and JC, THIS is hysterical!!! >>>


[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/pew-report-climate-change.jpg.html][/URL]

 

[Crick]

I think THIS is hilarious

Pardon the long post, but I doubt my target audience would make the extra effort

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/01/29/us/global-warming-poll.html?_r=0

Moderators, if you think this is too much text, feel free to delete everything south of the link above.

Effect of Global Warming
Most Americans think global warming poses a critical threat — in the future, for other people. A majority said it will be a very serious problem for the future of the world, but fewer described it as very serious for the United States.

If nothing is done to reduce global warming in the future, how serious of a problem do you think it will be for the United States?
Very serious
44%
Somewhat serious
34%
Not so serious
10%
Not serious at all
10%
Don't know/refused
If nothing is done to reduce global warming in the future, how serious of a problem do you think it will be for the world?
Very serious
57%
Somewhat serious
26%
Not so serious
7%
Not serious at all
9%
Don't know/refused
How much do you think global warming has hurt you personally?
A great deal
6%
A lot
7%
A moderate amount
21%
A little
22%
Not at all
44%
Don't know/refused
How much do you think global warming has helped you personally?
A great deal
A lot
A moderate amount
6%
A little
12%
Not at all
78%
Don't know/refused
If nothing is done to reduce global warming in the future, how much do you think it will hurt you personally?
A great deal
18%
A lot
16%
A moderate amount
20%
A little
17%
Not at all
28%
Don't know/refused
If nothing is done to reduce global warming in the future, how much do you think it will help you personally?
A great deal
A lot
A moderate amount
9%
A little
12%
Not at all
72%
Don't know/refused
If nothing is done to reduce global warming in the future, how much do you think it will hurt future generations?
A great deal
43%
A lot
16%
A moderate amount
15%
A little
11%
Not at all
14%
Don't know/refused
If nothing is done to reduce global warming in the future, how much do you think it will help future generations?
A great deal
A lot
A moderate amount
9%
A little
11%
Not at all
69%
Don't know/refused
Would the United States doing things to reduce global warming in the future hurt the economy, help, or have no effect?
Help the U.S. economy
42%
Hurt the U.S. economy
30%
Would not affect
24%
Possible Issue Statements
Respondents were given statements that could be made by someone who wants to be a United States Senator or President of the United States. The poll suggests more support for a candidate that advocates action to reduce global warming, while a candidate who denies the existence of the problem would be viewed unfavorably, particularly by Democrats and independents.

If a candidate says this, would you be more likely to vote for the candidate, less likely, or would it have no effect?“I believe that global warming has been happening for the past 100 years, mainly because we have been burning fossil fuels and putting out greenhouse gasses. Now is the time for us to be using new forms of energy that are made in America and will be renewable forever. We can manufacture better cars that use less gasoline and build better appliances that use less electricity. We need to transform the outdated ways of generating energy into new ones that create jobs and entire industries, and stop the damage we’ve been doing to the environment.”
More likely
66%
Less likely
12%
Has no effect
21%
“The science on global warming is a hoax and is an attempt to perpetrate a fraud on the American people. I don’t buy into the whole man-caused global warming mantra. We must spend no effort to deal with something that is not a problem at all. We should not invest in windmills and solar panels as alternative energy sources. Instead we should continue to focus on our traditional sources of energy: coal, oil and natural gas. We should expand energy production in our country, including continuing to mine our coal and doing more drilling for oil here at home.”
More likely
13%
Less likely
67%
Has no effect
19%
“When people ask me if I believe global warming has been happening, I’m not qualified to debate the science over climate change, because I am not a scientist. When people ask me if I believe human activity causes global warming, I don’t know. There is significant scientific dispute about that. We can debate this forever. I am not qualified to make this decision. But I am astute enough to understand that every proposal to deal with climate change involves hurting our economy and killing American jobs.”
More likely
27%
Less likely
44%
Has no effect
27%
Obama and Global Warming
Although President Obama released an action plan for dealing with climate change in 2013 and in November made a deal with China to reduce emissions, most people do not think he has been doing more on global warming lately.

Did President Obama do more about global warming during the past year than during the two years before that, less, or about the same amount?
Did more
16%
Did less
14%
Did about the same
60%
10%
How important should global warming be to President Obama?
Extremely important
21%
Very important
31%
Moderately important
23%
Slightly important
14%
Not important at all
10%
Don't know/refused
How important is global warming to President Obama?
Extremely important
12%
Very important
24%
Moderately important
30%
Slightly important
19%
Not important at all
12%
Don't know/refused
Congress and Global Warming
Few think Congress has done much for global warming lately or find members of Congress trustworthy on the subject.

Did the United States Congress do more about global warming during the past year than during the two years before that, less, or about the same amount?
6%
Did less
25%
Did about the same
61%
8%
How much do you trust the things that Democrats in Congress say about global warming?
Completely
A lot
14%
A moderate amount
30%
A little
27%
Not at all
24%
Don't know/refused
How important should global warming be to Democrats in Congress?
Extremely important
24%
Very important
28%
Moderately important
24%
Slightly important
15%
Not important at all
8%
Don't know/refused
How important is global warming to Democrats in Congress?
Extremely important
8%
Very important
17%
Moderately important
37%
Slightly important
23%
Not important at all
12%
Don't know/refused
How much do you trust the things that Republicans in Congress say about global warming?
Completely
A lot
A moderate amount
27%
A little
29%
Not at all
35%
Don't know/refused
How important should global warming be to Republicans in Congress?
Extremely important
22%
Very important
30%
Moderately important
24%
Slightly important
13%
Not important at all
10%
Don't know/refused
How important is global warming to Republicans in Congress?
Extremely important
Very important
8%
Moderately important
25%
Slightly important
33%
Not important at all
28%
Don't know/refused
Possible Government Action
Most Americans want the federal government to do something about global warming. There is strong approval for corporate tax breaks and but much less support for tax increases.

As you may have heard, greenhouse gases are thought to cause global warming. Should the federal government limit the amount of greenhouse gases that U.S. businesses put out?
Federal government should limit
78%
Federal government should not limit
19%
For each of the following, please tell me whether you favor or oppose it as a way for the federal government to try to reduce future global warming:

Increasing taxes on electricity so people use less of it.
Favor
25%
Oppose
74%
Increasing taxes on gasoline so people either drive less, or buy cars that use less gas.
Favor
36%
Oppose
63%
Giving companies tax breaks to build nuclear power plants.
Favor
36%
Oppose
61%
Giving companies tax breaks to produce more electricity from water, wind, and solar power.
Favor
80%
Oppose
19%
Giving tax breaks to companies that burn coal to make electricity if they use new methods to reduce the air pollution being released from their smokestacks.

 

[skookerasbil]

New York Times s0n!!!


fAiL


Check Pew, Gallup, Rasmussen........reputable pollsters.



Oh...........and from your poll btw >>>


Increasing taxes on electricity so people use less of it. Favor
25%
Oppose
74%

Increasing taxes on gasoline so people either drive less, or buy cars that use less gas.
Favor
36%
Oppose
63%



People lose interest when they realize they have to open their wallets with this global warming stuff!!! A slightly critical point!!!

 

[mamooth]

There is nothing to fight about. Westwall is correct in his assessment as am I in mine.

Pointing out that jet streams and the resulting high pressures and low pressure regions can stall but they do not last forever, is not inconsistent with our positions.

"Not lasting forever" is not the same as "not usually being there." The Greenland high isn't always there, but it's the common pattern, so it has an effect on average local temperature. That effect is not simply blown away by the rotating earth (the Westwall theory). Weather patterns don't have to be there 100% of the time to have an effect on the local average.

You failing to figure out how the earth systems are reacting to stimuli from other systems is priceless..

You failing to understand how you proved my point is the hilarious part. I'll let you know when I need your assistance again.

 

[jc456]

AGWCult Logic: The USA's cooling has no meaning in terms of "Global" warming, because we're only 1.5% of the worlds total area (including the Pacific Oyster Eating Blob), but a rain storm in Texas which is only .13% of the total mass is proof of manmade global climate warming change or whatever they're calling it today

OK?

Got that?

We never said that though. You did.

uh, no your side did:
credit old crocks:

From rainy Texas to scorching India this has been a month of strange weather around the world Fox News

WASHINGTON – Even for a world getting used to wild weather, May seems stuck on strange.

Torrential downpours in Texas that have whiplashed the region from drought to flooding. A heat wave that has killed more than 1,800 people in India. Record 91-degree readings in Alaska, of all places. A pair of top-of-the-scale typhoons in the Northwest Pacific. And a drought taking hold in the East.

"Mother Nature keeps throwing us crazy stuff," Rutgers University climate scientist Jennifer Francis says. "It's just been one thing after another."

Jerry Meehl, an extreme-weather expert at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, points out that May is usually a pretty extreme month, with lots of tornadoes and downpours. Even so, he says, this has been "kind of unusually intense."

The word "stuck" provides one possible explanation.

Francis, Meehl and some other meteorologists say the jet stream is in a rut, not moving nasty weather along. The high-speed, constantly shifting river of air 30,000 feet above Earth normally guides storms around the globe, but sometimes splits and comes back together somewhere else.


A stuck jet stream, with a bit of a split, explains the extremes in Texas, India, Alaska and the U.S. East, but not the typhoons, Francis says.

Other possible factors contributing to May's wild weather: the periodic warming of the central Pacific known as El Nino, climate change and natural variability, scientists say.

Those damned liberals at Fox, will they never shut up?

Nice linking skills. Unfortunately the article doesn't actually say what you claim it says.

uh, yeah it does.

Nowhere in your linked article is it claimed that global warming is proven by a rain storm in Texas. You either cannot read or are stupid.

Global warming is "proven" by the fact that the globe is getting warmer.

No Pause in Global Warming - Scientific American

Duh.

BTW, here is Bill Nye your climate guy blaming Austin Weather as global warming:

credit the daily caller:


Bill Nye the “Science Guy” is once again trying to blame global warming for a series of weather events happening around the U.S., but this time meteorologists aren’t having it.

Meteorologists criticized Nye’s claim that warm temperatures in Alaska and flooding in Texas are a product of man-made global warming.

As Tropical Storm Bill (no relation to Nye) was projected to make landfall in Texas, Nye tweeted:

Bill floods Texas. Alaska is on fire. Just a little global warming & climate change. Nothing to worry about…
Source: The Daily Caller

 

[Old Rocks]

Temperature Changes in Alaska Alaska Climate Research Center

Mr. Ian

 

[Muhammed]

The scummiest of non-productive scumbags are the ones who promote CAGW theory.

Their little cult is composed of the most vile, unintelligent, unethical, disgusting and dishonest people that have ever existed.

 

[Kosh]

Here it is again just case the AGW cult missed it:

 

[IanC]

Temperature Changes in Alaska Alaska Climate Research Center

Mr. Ian

So where is the CRN data? That is what we were discussing.

And your latest graph....sure looks like a step change in the late 70's rather than a steady increase. Was there a change in the ocean currents by any chance?

 

[Crick]

Temperature Changes in Alaska Alaska Climate Research Center

Mr. Ian

So where is the CRN data? That is what we were discussing.

And your latest graph....sure looks like a step change in the late 70's rather than a steady increase. Was there a change in the ocean currents by any chance?

What happens here at at that point in time Ian?

 

[Crick]

Here it is again just case the AGW cult missed it:

And when, per your graph here, was the highest temperature of the last million years? Hmm... looks like... YESTERDAY.