2001-2010 warmest decade on record: WMO

Mar 23, 2012
Paul Lavers salvages the laundry from his flooded backyard after heavy rains caused flash flooding across Sydney on March 8. The UN weather agency noted that during the decade, "numerous weather and climate extremes affected almost every part of the globe with flooding, droughts, cyclones, heat waves and cold waves."

Climate change has accelerated in the past decade, the UN weather agency said Friday, releasing data showing that 2001 to 2010 was the warmest decade on record.

The 10-year period was also marked by extreme levels of rain or snowfall, leading to significant flooding on all continents, while droughts affected parts of East Africa and North America.

"The decade 2001-2010 was the warmest since records began in 1850, with global land and estimated at 0.46 degrees Celsius above the long term average of 14.0 degrees Celsius (57.2 )," said the World Meteorological Organisation.

Nine of the 10 years also counted among the 10 warmest on record, it added, noting that "climate change accelerated" during the first decade of the 21st century.

The trend continued in 2011, which was the on record despite La Nina -- a which has a cooling effect.

The average temperature in 2011 was 0.40 degrees Celsius above the long term average, said the WMO.

"This 2011 annual assessment confirms the findings of the previous WMO annual statements that climate change is happening now and is not some distant future threat," said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud.

"The world is warming because of human activities and this is resulting in far-reaching and potentially irreversible impacts on our Earth, atmosphere and oceans," he added.

The UN weather agency noted that during the decade, "numerous weather and climate extremes affected almost every part of the globe with flooding, droughts, cyclones, and cold waves."

Historical floods hit Eastern Europe in 2001 and 2005, Africa in 2008, Asia and Australia in 2010.Global precipitation -- including rain or snow -- reached the second highest average since 1901. The highest average was recorded for the decade 1951-1960.

Meanwhile for the North Atlantic basin, the 10 years marked the highest level of tropical cyclone activity, including which struck the United States in 2005 and Cyclone Nargis which hit Myanmar in 2008.

Explore further: Average temperature in Finland has risen by more than two degrees

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

UN: 2010 tied for warmest year on record

Jan 20, 2011

(AP) -- Last year tied with 1998 and 2005 for the warmest year on record, providing further evidence that the planet is slowly heating up, the U.N. weather agency said Thursday.

Mercury busts charts; 2010 in top 3 hottest years

Dec 02, 2010

(AP) -- A scorching summer that killed thousands in Russia and exceptionally mild winters in the Arctic were among extreme weather events that have put 2010 on track to be one of the three hottest years on record, U.N. experts ...

June Earth's hottest ever: US monitors

Jul 15, 2010

Last month was the hottest June ever recorded on Earth, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Thursday, amid global climate warming worries.

Recommended for you

Rising anger as Nicaragua canal to break ground

Dec 21, 2014

As a conscripted soldier during the Contra War of the 1980s, Esteban Ruiz used to flee from battles because he didn't want to have to kill anyone. But now, as the 47-year-old farmer prepares to fight for ...

Hopes, fears, doubts surround Cuba's oil future

Dec 20, 2014

One of the most prolific oil and gas basins on the planet sits just off Cuba's northwest coast, and the thaw in relations with the United States is giving rise to hopes that Cuba can now get in on the action.

User comments : 176

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (34) Mar 23, 2012
Yet another nail in the Denialist coffin.

axemaster
4.3 / 5 (33) Mar 23, 2012
I don't really know what to say. Nine out of ten years being the warmest on record. That is a really shocking number if you think about it. Yet nothing of import is being done to put a stop to it. Even when it has been shown that we will end up paying twice as much if we don't do anything about it. http://www.skepti...nomy.htm

That's an estimate of 20 trillion dollars in damage by 2100. That's an average of 220 billion dollars per year. That's roughly the cost of maintaining our current wars in the Middle East FOREVER. I think that by now we understand how damaging that kind of financial burden is.

Now imagine having to pay 220 billion or more per year, AND fighting the wars that will inevitably come down the line. It can't be done. At least not while maintaining the USA as a 1st world country.

Ignoring the reality of global warming is pure madness.
Parsec
4.5 / 5 (31) Mar 23, 2012
Yet another nail in the Denialist coffin.


Not really. Denialist's don't care about facts, so this will leave them undeterred. Them and the flat earth society.
RAF44
1.8 / 5 (31) Mar 23, 2012
Given that there are only 16 decades on record, announcing the warmest of such a small group is unimpressive.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (23) Mar 23, 2012
That is an astonishing statement given that one of your fellow Denialist Tards has been arguing that temperatures were warmer 2,000 years ago.

"Given that there are only 16 decades on record." - RafTard

Would you mind explaining how other Denialist Tards have been insisting that global temperatures were higher 600 million years ago when the land mass of the earth was devoid of life.

Are your Tard Boy Brothers lying?
Callippo
1.8 / 5 (24) Mar 23, 2012
IMO the people (including most rigorous scientists) simply don't care about reality, when material motivations are involved and it has no further meaning to speculate about it. Global warming is real, glacier melting is real, climate extremes are real, acidification of oceans and coral bleaching is real - but are all these changes made be people? This is still question. Can we face it in another way, than with massive implementation of cold fusion? Of course not.
deepsand
3.3 / 5 (17) Mar 23, 2012
NotParker, you've got some 'splaining to do.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (16) Mar 23, 2012
Sanrorum states that Warming Denialists have their head up their backside.

http://www.youtub...ure=plcp
Physmet
1.7 / 5 (23) Mar 23, 2012
The facts are clear. The last decade has been the warmest in the last 160 years. The facts that are missing are what's causing the warming and how it compares to the years before the last 160. The earth's cycles are a lot longer than our measly lives. So...are we the cause? It's certainly possible. Or, are we acting like parents whose sweet children suddenly turn into teenagers, rebel, and we freak out. The reality is that the teenager's behavior is normal. So might be the warming effect. I don't know either way, but it's also a reasonable possibility.
Vendicar_Decarian
Mar 23, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
djr
4.3 / 5 (18) Mar 23, 2012
Physmet - I have a couple of reactions to your post. First - there has been constant posts after articles on global warming - stating that there has been no warming in the last 15 yrs - therefore the scientists are all liars. This of course conflicts with the facts - but the facts do not seem important to the group who always want to turn the debate political - and yell and scream about the global conspiracy. So irregardless of the cause - as the science community has anticipated - this information validates the notion that the climate is warming - and we have reason to be concerned.
gregor1
1.6 / 5 (26) Mar 23, 2012
dir please post one link to peer reviewed work that shows warming in the last 15 years. The world has warmed as we come out of the little ice age. The warmest decade in 160 years says nothing about the cause of this and we are still apparently cooler than the medieval warm period and the Roman period though we have only proxies to establish this. This quote may explain some of the alarming rhetoric

"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports

gregor1
1.9 / 5 (28) Mar 23, 2012
Or perhaps Dr Vincent Gray wold be of help
"I have been an Expert Reviewer on every one of the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and I can tell you that there is not a scrap of evidence in any of them that human emissions of carbon dioxide have any harmful effect on the climate."
http://hockeyscht...-is.html
djr
4.1 / 5 (18) Mar 23, 2012
Physmet - secondly - if we can now feel more confident in the understanding that the climate is warming - of course important questions are - what is causing the warming? is it natural, man made, or a combination? and what happens now? If you are serious about the questions you asked - I would think you would want to bury yourself in the research, and find out what the scientists are saying. I think the general feeling is that current warming is remarkable in the pace of change, and that the most likely primary cause is the green house gasses we are pumping in to the atmosphere. For me - the precautionary principle says - let's go balls to the wall in the development of alternative energy - end our dependence on fossil fuels - reinvigorate our economies - move to the next phase of our journey - and listen to the scientists on the subject of climate change. Just my approach. David.
djr
4.6 / 5 (18) Mar 23, 2012
I am at work right now Gregor - don't think that will be hard to oblige you with - but have to wait until tmrw. If anyone else can do a little digging. Gregor - do you have a link to peer reviewed work that shows no warming. I can show you mounds of data from GIS - and Colorado that shows the temperature data - do you have evidence to the contrary?
DirtySquirties
4.1 / 5 (17) Mar 23, 2012
Hypothetically, if we have absolutely no clue what is causing the climate change, would we really risk choosing to do nothing if it does turn out to be us? No! That's plain stupid.

Again, hypothetically, if we knew for a fact that pollution wasn't causing climate change, would we just keep on polluting? No! That's plain stupid!

I don't get why we need to use climate change as the real reason to clean up our communities and go clean energy when there are dozens or even hundreds of other reasons to do so. If you need someone to spell out all the health, ecological, and economical reasons why we should start cleaning up our act now, then I highly suggest doing some research on pollution. This whole fight is ridiculous.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.1 / 5 (17) Mar 23, 2012
Vendicar_Decarian
3.8 / 5 (20) Mar 23, 2012
No problem...

http://iopscience.../044022/

Supplementary

http://www.realcl...s/#bib_1

"dir please post one link to peer reviewed work that shows warming in the last 15 years." - Gregor

http://www.realcl...-lesson/

You poor Denialist Tard you.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.8 / 5 (18) Mar 23, 2012
Sorry Tard Boy, but the laws of physics which have been under constant verification for the last 200 years tell us what is the cause.

"The warmest decade in 160 years says nothing about the cause of this" - GregorTard

Science tells us that the cause is CO2.

Conservative non-science nonsense tells us that the cause is not known.

Rational people reject your nonsense.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (18) Mar 23, 2012
"If anyone else can do a little digging." - dir

Digging? It took less than 10 seconds.

Gregor couldn't take the 10 second required to find the answer himself.

Is that a sign of incompetence or willful ignorance?

And now given the link will he change his tune? If he does not then we know his request was disingenuous.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.8 / 5 (17) Mar 23, 2012
The scientific community agrees with you.

"This whole fight is ridiculous." - Dirty

Pr. groups employed by the oil industry and industry propaganda groups like the Heritage Foundation, Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute etc. are ideologically opposed to your view.

You should ask yourself how many denialists here are actually paid to post corporate disinformation.

I personally know of people who are paid to surf the net trolling for negative comments about their employer and countering the complaints with glowing reports of the same products or services.

I have exposed one high level employee of the Competitive Enterprise Institute for doing the same regarding environmental issues, including but not limited to Global Warming.

After being exposed for the liar he was, he found himself gone from the CEI and immediately employed by another Libertarian Propaganda group. He now runs his own corporate funded anti-union propaganda business.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.8 / 5 (17) Mar 23, 2012
"I have been an Expert Reviewer on every one of the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and I can tell you that there is not a scrap of evidence in any of them that human emissions of carbon dioxide have any harmful effect on the climate." - Dr. Vincent Grey

All it takes to be an expert reviewer is to refrain from publicly commenting on the draft. So just about anyone who requests to see a draft of the IPCC's report is qualified to be an IPCC expert reviewer.

A search of 22,000 academic journals shows that Gray has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change. Gray has published peer-reviewed scientific work on coal, his most recent article having been published 17 years ago.

The hand full of denialist scientists who exist generally haven't been practicing scientists for decades. They are old, commenting outside of their former area of expertise, and often borderline senile.

gregor1
1.5 / 5 (22) Mar 24, 2012
"the accelerating climate change" claim derives from AR5 and was included after the review stage was completed and includes a rather sneaky trick that should never have gotten through
http://sites.goog...calculus
djr
4.1 / 5 (15) Mar 24, 2012
This is peer reviewed Gregor. Take a look at the graphs. http://www.ipcc.c...2-2.html

Now - as per your standards - can you show us any peer reviewed articles that show no warming in the past 15 yrs?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (19) Mar 24, 2012
GregorTard, the link I have provided to you isn't associated with the IPCC in any way.

Here it is again.

http://iopscience.../044022/

Further your link points to statistical nonsense. In no way does the sinusoidal wave provided as an example in your link, represent temperature trends. Your link shows a statistically even sample that would show no increase over the time scale.

The magnitude of the increase in your reference example is only 0.4'C when the actual measured value is 0.74'C And to get 0.4'C the natural level of variability in your example had to be set to 1'C, when attribution studies have shown the natural level to be 0.5'C.

Further your reference example is clearly periodic while the natural trend shows no consistent period or at best a small 0.5'C fluctuation superimposed on a 0.74'C trendline.

Finally your reference stops at the year 2,000 while there have been 11 more years of warming since then.

Here is the proper graphic from GISS showing zero periodicity
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (15) Mar 24, 2012
And the missing 12 years.

http://data.giss....g.A2.gif

Now GregorTard. Instead of responding with nonsense that doesn't even speak to the last 15 years - your request.

Speak to the reference provided above - the one you asked for. The one I found for you within 10 seconds. The one you implied didn't exist.

You poor, stupid, Tard.

GeoGeo
4.3 / 5 (13) Mar 24, 2012
The facts that are missing are what's causing the warming and how it compares to the years before the last 160.


You should take a look at the Suess Effect - definitive evidence that climate change is a direct result of anthropogenic forcings.
It helps if you understand isotopes but the following should be enough to make sense of it all for you...

http://www.gly.ug...lide.jpg
Howhot
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 24, 2012
OMG! I can not believe anyone that cannot see how doomed we are with our present course of CO2 production into 2100. The numbers are
frighting.
flippertie _
5 / 5 (9) Mar 24, 2012
Sanrorum states that Warming Denialists have their head up their backside.
Eccccch! that would get their heads covered with santorum. Messy.
djr
4.5 / 5 (15) Mar 24, 2012
Gregor - the reference that you yourself cited - https://sites.goo...calculus has a couple of very interesting graphs. Please look closely at these temperature data graphs. Now this is a reference that you supplied. Do you recognize that the graphs clearly show significant levels of warming in the last 15 years? Do we have to keep showing you how wrong you are? I guess it does not matter what you or I think - but the stakes are very high here - and I wish we could get past the lies, and misinformation - and move on to solutions to the problem...
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (25) Mar 24, 2012
Sure, it's the "warmest decade on record," but the warming trend of the past has been arrested, and it's even trending slightly cooler for the decade in question.

See the graph:

http://www.woodfo...10/trend

djr
4.5 / 5 (15) Mar 24, 2012
I was really confused by the data presented by ubavontuba - seemed very contradictory to so much of the data I had been looking at recently. Did not take many minutes to find that his data was based on hadcrut3 data - that is understood to be biased on the cooling side - and will soon be replaced by hadcrut4. Here is an article from the British MET on the issue. http://www.metoff...g-record An interesting question would be - why did woodforthetrees select one data set - that has been reported to be bias on the cool side to make their point? Also - if you read the articles from the hadcrut site - these guys are totally on board with the issue of global warming being a serious problem. This is an interesting article-ubavon-look carefully at the graph that shows the temperature anomalies by averaging the 5 available data sets - see how it discredits your post-http://planetsave...science/
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (16) Mar 24, 2012
UbvonTard's graph makes me wonder why he chose 2001 to 2010 as the start and end dates when there is data for two additional years.

UbvonTard's graphic shows a falling temp of 0.02'C over his period, but changing the start point by 1 year to 2000 produces a somewhat different result - a rise of 0.02'C which persists when the end date is set to 2012.

Setting the start date to 1999 provides an increase of 0.04'C

Setting the start date to 1995 provides an increase of 0.12'C

Setting the start date to 1990 provides an increase of 0.32'C

Clearly UbvonTard has attempted to lie with statistics by selecting a start date that supports his politically motivated wishes but which does not reflect what virtually any other start dates shows.

In addition he ignores the fact that climate is defined over 30 year periods and yet his plot only reflects a duration of 9 years.

I must conclude that UbvonTard is a calculating liar.
nvn
2.2 / 5 (10) Mar 24, 2012
Vendicar_Decarian: Read the title of the article and you might understand why he chose 2001-2010. That graph showed the trend during the decade in question(based on hadcrut data).
Vendicar_Decarian
3.6 / 5 (14) Mar 24, 2012
Not relevant since UbvonTard did not show the magnitude of the temperature of that period compared to the magnitude of the temperature at other periods.

He dishonestly chose to compute a trend in weather.... Which in itself says nothing about Climate.

On the other hand 10 of the warmest years on record falling within a single decade does say something about both weather and climate since it is statistically unlikely for such a repeat occurance.

Weather is largely stochastic so 10 years of the warmest years on record is much like rolling a 5 or a 6, ten times in a row.

Feel free to compute the odds of that.. and get back to us with the results.

"Read the title of the article and you might understand why he chose 2001-2010." - NVN
NeutronicallyRepulsive
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 24, 2012
The warming is unfortunate (for some regions, that is), but I'm still not convinced about possibility of humans to steer its course just by removing CO2 production. (Vendicar_Decarian, please, don't respond to me, I'm having nice day here, I'm not in a mood for your juvenile insults.)
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Mar 24, 2012
.... we will end up paying twice as much if we don't do anything about it.

That's an estimate of 20 trillion dollars in damage by 2100. That's an average of 220 billion dollars per year.


If I use the BTU the calculator I learned in one of my thermodynamics courses, and calculate the BTU's saved from not having to burn all those hydro-carbons in the form of oil & nat gas to heat all our habitats, I wonder how close to your numbers that would be? That of course is money not spent that would need to be subtracted from your numbers which are a "static scoring", now try it using a scientific "dynamic scoring".
djr
5 / 5 (8) Mar 24, 2012
"but I'm still not convinced about possibility of humans to steer its course just by removing CO2 production" Any thoughts on precautionary principle Neutron? I can see no down side to developing alternative energy. We develop new technologies. Democratisation of energy supply. Distributed energy that can be quickly brought to developing countries - without need for massive infrastructure development. No more Gulf oil spills. Boosts economies around the world. Energy cost curve continues down. So many benefits. And we will then get to see the result of halting C02 emissions. What's not to like?
Telekinetic
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 24, 2012
There is a peculiar aspect to the human psyche due to an overly- developed brain, and that is the split between the desire to live and die. You'll notice that gun-wielding killers often wind up taking their own lives after murdering a number of random strangers, which is analogous to the poisoners of our atmosphere, water supplies, and lands. Why should we accept the murderous/suicidal behavior of government-sanctioned corporations? Why must we wait to be pushed to the point-of-no-return before anything is done? This is a direct threat to existence, like an invasion. Shouldn't we be at war with these enemies?
NeutronicallyRepulsive
1 / 5 (9) Mar 24, 2012
djr:
What's not to like?


I'm - of course - not against the smooth transition into cleaner energy, if that indeed is cheaper on its own, but there are undemocratic forces at hand, trying to alter the balance. In Europe such scare tactics of "environmentalists" led to madness about biofuel, nobody saw that it would mean economic disaster.

So precautionary principle yes, but economically viable. At the moment, I'm not convinced that money are being spent reasonably on AGW. It's like those crazy guys building an anti-nuclear shelter, spending family money just because of "what if". I also don't like their "end justifies the means" strategy.

We're are the only beings on this planet that can be held responsible. That's why some of us held us responsible for GW, not necessarily because we are. But whom else to blame? Nature? Some people are unable to face the reality, that nature is more powerful than us, and we can't control it. Better prepare, that's what we do.
rikvanriel
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 24, 2012
A number of things are quite obvious. One of them is that CO2 is a cause of warming. Another is that CO2 is not the only cause, because warming (out of the little ice age) started before the industrial age kicked in.

Anyone pretending that CO2 does not cause warming, or that CO2 is the only thing responsible for warming, may want to (re-)examine the data.

Another fairly obvious fact is that temperature increased by about 1 degree C for the last doubling of CO2 (over the past 150 years or so). This suggests the next doubling of CO2 might cause warming of a similar magnitude, plus or minus the other factors influencing the temperature; so maybe warming up to about 2 degrees C.

The catastrophic feedbacks postulated in the computer models have not been observed. We have enough data by now to know the models need to be adjusted. We will get some warming, but the data does not suggest it will be catastrophic. Crop yields suggest it may even be beneficial.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (15) Mar 24, 2012
We have been told that climate is measured in 30 years spans.
Egleton
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2012
I miss the rantings of the Denialists. They were fun.
Skepticus
1.6 / 5 (13) Mar 24, 2012
As usual...AGW sentries are quick to muck up the waters for people who want to get the facts right about climate change. I wish there is a way to make AGW a branch of antisemitism or Holocaust deniers. Then, the whole international community will outlaw and condemn it :-). Unless, of course, the AGW get there first!
djr
5 / 5 (8) Mar 24, 2012
" if that indeed is cheaper on its own" Interesting position Neutron. How do you feel about world gvts spending billions on research into fusion? It is not currently viable - but one day will probably provide infinite cheap energy. I am in favor of gvts being willing to fund developments that will benefit society in the long haul. Sure there are risks- and ethanol is an example of a badly run gvt program here in the u.s. Special interests often hijack gvt programs for narrow interest gains. Many farmers here get huge gvt checks for growing one crop over another. It artificially drops the price of food. How do you feel about massive expenditures on the war machine? The cost curves on renewables are coming down fast. We are close to grid parity on both wind and solar. The economics are about to kick in - and we will escape gravity. My problem is with the fear and disinformation we see - that appears to me to be desperately trying to hang on to an obsolete world view.
rikvanriel
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2012
Skepticus: the nice thing about science is that it (usually) works with theories that make predictions, which can be falsified through observations.

The theory holding that a doubling of CO2 causes around 1 degree C of warming (everything else being equal) has stood the time of test for about a century now.

The 1990's climate models that predict an atmospheric hot spot above the tropics have been falsified by satellite observations.

This is not a big surprise since, due to computational limits, those models did not model clouds, but only non-cloud water vapor. Add in the cooling effect of clouds, and water vapor feedback changes.

If climate science was like regular science, people would have already gone back and adjusted those models to incorporate the things we have learned from observations in the past two decades. Instead, some of the papers by modelers appear to be calibrating the new models against the old models, not against observations...
joefarah
1 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2012
Given the attention paid to GW in the past decade, does this mean that our efforts are having a reverse effect, or that the warming has nothing to do with man?
NeutronicallyRepulsive
1.9 / 5 (8) Mar 24, 2012
djr:
How do you feel about world gvts spending billions on research into fusion?


I got nothing against science research, either fusion, or solar panels, or something else. It's that market fiddling I don't like. I'm not talking about lobbying. I'm all for setting up taxing for non-preferred energy politics, but that should be all. Just set-up constraints by law, and let the free market to take care of what happens. Not the other way around, by forcing the farmers to take some specific route, while prohibiting alternative (or at least making it absolutely unreasonable). Let them choose, if petrol (oil) is still good for them or whether something else is now cheaper (a bit).

How do you feel about massive expenditures on the war machine?


I would definitely cut down a budget for any army if I have my say about that. At least to a point, I would still kept some meaningful form. A budget for the US army is unreasonably big at this moment.
determinist
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 24, 2012
I'm from Wisconsin and I favor global warming. I'd like to plant royal palms on Lombardi Ave. Cleared snow from my sidewalk only three times all winter. We can adapt to climate change. {Calling someone a 'tard' is disrespectful}.
djr
5 / 5 (5) Mar 24, 2012
Looks like we have some good areas of agreement Neutron. My beef is with the anti science crowd - the ones on a religious crusade to show the climate scientists are on some global campaign to falsify data - in order to maintain their funding base. The research on PV panels is indeed paying off - we are hitting grid parity around the world - so the industry is about to escape gravity. It will be interesting to see how the utility companies react. I think they will embrace the technology - and use their buying power and expertise to become the main suppliers of panels.
Telekinetic
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 24, 2012
@determinist:
The consequences of allowing and encouraging global warming are too dire with extinctions of species and sea levels rising that will displace millions. Maybe you're just being facetious, but the situation is not funny, and adaptation is meant for what nature dishes up, not man. Out of respect, I'll refrain from calling you a "tard", but you ARE a knucklehead.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Mar 24, 2012
adaptation is meant for what nature dishes up, not man.

Man is part of nature.
Nature has caused more extinctions than man over billions of years.
kochevnik
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 24, 2012
Now imagine having to pay 220 billion or more per year, AND fighting the wars that will inevitably come down the line. It can't be done. At least not while maintaining the USA as a 1st world country.
USA will collapse after July when Iran sells oil in major currencies, not the petrodollar. The bullish US bond market will collapse and USA will become the third world theocratic backwater the GOP presidential hopefuls are prepared to rule. It is thought this process will be slow, but the Berlin Wall fell rapidly and unexpectedly ushering in a new world economy. USA has played the game now only the world must make it's countermove and the glorious corporatist USA superpower will be succeeded by Russia and China for the next century. Even as Russia and China have their issues, those will be nothing compared to the devastation and destruction of Wall Street.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Mar 24, 2012
ushering in a new world economy.

If you mean the Euro, it is collapsing.
rikvanriel
1 / 5 (2) Mar 24, 2012
The new world economy will be based on supply and demand. Kind of like the old world economy. In fact, it may be difficult to tell the difference.
MorituriMax
1.9 / 5 (8) Mar 24, 2012
So how many "warmest decades" have there been in 4 billion years?

How many were man-made? How many weren't? How did the Earth recover from them all? Why do people assume that the temperatures we have grown used to in the last several thousand years is the normal temperature for the Earth?

I'm just tired of this whole "eggs good for you," "eggs bad for you" cycle of science going on all the time. In a hundred years are we going to be ridiculing the people who deny the Earth is getting cooler?
gregor1
1.4 / 5 (14) Mar 24, 2012
It is well known that the IPCC process has been corrupted by green activists becoming lead authors.(if you don't believe me google). Your link is 2007 anyway. Here's something from the British met office.http://www.dailym...ain.html
Howhot
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 24, 2012
Gregor1 says
It is well known that the IPCC process has been corrupted


Geeze what planet where you born on? Lier. Actually it is one of the most credentialed group of atmospheric scientists in the World. These guys are so smart they could make your head explode just by looking at you.

Sorry to say but Gregor1 is another butt blossom that lies.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (15) Mar 24, 2012
"Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is under the spotlight again following the latest criticism of his organisation. "
"The former railway engineer "
http://www.telegr...man.html

"Yet in interviews and responses to
the Committees questionnaire, some scientists expressed frustration that
they have not been nominated, despite their scientific qualifications and
demonstrated willingness to participate. Frustration was particularly
strong among developing-country scientists, who felt that some of their
Government Focal Points do not always nominate the best scientists from
among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these
scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight
than scientific qualifications."
http://www.intera...id=27669
djr
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 24, 2012
So Gregor - you demand a peer reviewed paper to support the notion that there has been warming in the past 15 years. As Howhot says - the IPCC is one of the most credentialed group of climate scientists in the world. Then your rebuttal cites - wait for it - THE DAILY MAIL. For those not familiar with the British tabloid joke - The Daily Mail is one of the most ridiculous newspapers in the world. And THE DAILY MAIL suggests that the warming of the past decades was caused by "the oceans". Any suggestions where "the oceans" may have gotten their heat from? - perhaps it was a thermonuclear reaction that only people familiar with cold fusion know about - this is ridiculous....
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 24, 2012
In denigrating the IPCC - Rygg cites the Daily Telegraph (well known right wing newspaper in the U.K.,) and gives another link that does not work. The Telegraph refers to Dr. Pachauri as "a former railway engineer". The telegraph could have mentioned a few other qualifications that Dr. Pachauri holds - including a Nobel Peace Prize - do you think the Telegraph was showing a little bias? Here is Dr. Pachauri's bio http://www.climat...uri.htm- pretty impressive to me.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (15) Mar 24, 2012
The terrorist Yasar Arafat had a Nobel 'Peace' Prize.

"Arafats Al Fatah had a terrorist arm called Black September which was responsible for the massacre of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, a brutal deed that shocked the world. Still fewer know that in March 1973, Arafat ordered a Black September attack on the Saudi embassy in Sudan, where our Ambassador Cleo Noel, our Deputy Chief of Mission George C. Moore and Belgian diplomat Guy Eid were taken hostage at a reception. They were brutally murdered, said to have been shot in a way that made their deaths especially agonizing."
http://www.aim.or...st-past/
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 25, 2012
"His career commenced with the Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi, where he held several managerial positions. Dr Pachauri then went on to join the North Carolina State University in Raleigh, USA, where he obtained an MS in industrial engineering in 1972, a Ph.D. in industrial engineering and a Ph.D. in economics. He also served as Assistant Professor in 1974-75 and was later a Visiting Faculty Member in the Department of Economics and Business. On his return to India in 1975, he joined the Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad, as Member Senior Faculty and went on to become Director, Consulting and Applied Research Division. "
http://www.teriin..._rkp.htm

AGWites complain when a scientist with climate research credentials are critical of their faith.
But AGWites don't mind their guru leader has no climate research credentials. Why?
RobPaulG
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 25, 2012
This totally contradicts what Phil Jones of the CRU said in the Climategate emails. I believe him in his unguarded candor, not this scam fabricated data.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (13) Mar 25, 2012
I was really confused by the data presented by ubavontuba - seemed very contradictory to so much of the data I had been looking at recently. Did not take many minutes to find that his data was based on hadcrut3 data - that is understood to be biased on the cooling side - and will soon be replaced by hadcrut4. Here is an article from the British MET on the issue. http://www.metoff...g-record
This smacks of changing the data when you don't like the answer, rather than being a genuine attempt to secure better data. But regardless, other data sets are available:

http://www.woodfo...10/trend

http://www.woodfo...10/trend

http://www.woodfo...10/trend

...all show similar trends.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (21) Mar 25, 2012
Here's GISTEMP LOTI global mean. It shows a slight upward trend:

http://www.woodfo...10/trend

Here's one that includes all four major temperature data indexes, combined (HADCRUT3, GISTEMP, UAH, RSS)

http://www.woodfo...10/trend

No matter how you slice it, this past decade has seen an arrested period of temperature change. Most likely, with a slightly downward trend.

Is it a hiccup? ...a plateau? ...a peak? Who knows?

ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (19) Mar 25, 2012
An interesting question would be - why did woodforthetrees select one data set - that has been reported to be bias on the cool side to make their point?
They have the major data sets available (see above). All show similar trends, save one (GISTEMP shows a slight rise).

Also - if you read the articles from the hadcrut site - these guys are totally on board with the issue of global warming being a serious problem.
Which is probably why they want to manipulate the data with HadCRUT4.

This is an interesting article-ubavon-look carefully at the graph that shows the temperature anomalies by averaging the 5 available data sets - see how it discredits your post-http://planetsave...science/
From the article:

statistical methods have been used to take out the effects of volcanic eruptions, Pacific Ocean cycles and the Sun.
Source: Planetsave (http://s.tt/16N4X)
Sounds like deliberate data manipulation to me. Why can't they just show the actual measured values?
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (19) Mar 25, 2012
Uba's graph makes me wonder why he chose 2001 to 2010 as the start and end dates when there is data for two additional years.
Apparently, Venditard can't read. The article is about the years I graphed. But the cooling trend continues:

http://www.woodfo...12/trend

and even sharply accelerates these past two years:

http://www.woodfo...12/trend

Uba's graphic shows a falling temp of 0.02'C over his period, but changing the start point by 1 year to 2000 produces a somewhat different result - a rise of 0.02'C which persists when the end date is set to 2012.
I never said it didn't rise before the time period in question. In fact, I admitted to quite the opposite.

ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (17) Mar 25, 2012
Clearly Uba has attempted to lie with statistics by selecting a start date that supports his politically motivated wishes but which does not reflect what virtually any other start dates shows.
You're an idiot. I selected dates relevant to the article. You're obviously trying to manipulate the data by going beyond its scope.

In addition he ignores the fact that climate is defined over 30 year periods and yet his plot only reflects a duration of 9 years.
Try reading the article we're commenting on, until you understand the proper frame of reference.

I must conclude that Uba is a calculating liar.
That you did not understand does not make me a liar, but rather raises questions concerning your competence.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (18) Mar 25, 2012
Not relevant since Uba did not show the magnitude of the temperature of that period compared to the magnitude of the temperature at other periods.
What's that got to do with it? I admitted it's "the warmest decade on record." What more do you need than that?

I think it's misleading for you and the article to scream about continued global warming, when the warming trend has been arrested for more than a decade.

Admit it. This past decade has seen no global warming. In fact, if you go back to 1997, there's been no significant global warming for 15 years!

http://www.woodfo...12/trend

He dishonestly chose to compute a trend in weather.... Which in itself says nothing about Climate.
I responded to the article. What are you writing about?

And I just provided data from half a standard climate period. This is enough to show a significant trend, even if it doesn't define the entire climate period.
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (17) Mar 25, 2012
Weather is largely stochastic so 10 years of the warmest years on record is much like rolling a 5 or a 6, ten times in a row.
Not necessarily. Weather trends define climate. If we're at a peak or a plateu, you'd expect trends to stabilize.

ccr5Delta32
5 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2012

Man is part of nature.
Nature has caused more extinctions than man over billions of years.


Indeed man is a part of nature and as so is an integral part of natural ecology ,environment and climate
It's a bit unfair to compare extinctions of natures billion years with those resulting from our activity . We've only been trashing this planet in any real sense since the industrial age 200 years or so and just look how many species are on the verge of extinction , Not bad ! riggesogn2 wouldn't you say ?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (16) Mar 25, 2012
look how many species are on the verge of extinction

How many?
How many NEW species are discovered every year?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 25, 2012
look how many species are on the verge of extinction

How many?
How many NEW species are discovered every year?

"Even in places as seemly well-studied as the national parks of North America, new species are still being discovered. "
http://www.physor...firstCmt
ccr5Delta32
4.8 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2012
look how many species are on the verge of extinction

How many?
How many NEW species are discovered every year?


You could start here http://www.well.c...ion.html
Vendicar_Decarian
Mar 25, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (16) Mar 25, 2012
a few other qualifications that Dr. Pachauri holds - including a Nobel Peace Prize -

"At one time, said Yelena Bonner, the widow of the 1975 winner Andrei Sakharov, the Nobel Peace Prize was the highest moral award of our civilization. But after December 1994, when Yasser Arafat became one of the three new laureates, its ethical value was undermined."
"it was won by Yasser Arafat and Rigoberta Menchu Tum, the Guatemalan who supported murderous Communist guerrillas and has been accused of fabricating parts of her autobiography."
http://www.washin...hey-say/
MorituriMax
3.6 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2012
USA will collapse after July when Iran sells oil in major currencies, not the petrodollar. The bullish US bond market will collapse and USA will become the third world

I cant wait till after July to laugh in your face.

As far as the Euro, give it a year and all those countries that are hanging on by a thread because they can't keep spending like they are will be propped up again and again until everyone collapses.

England sure has confidence in it, they wouldn't even adopt it. Nice.
royfox9
3 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2012
WHOA! Wait a second....the earth ISN'T flat?!?
kochevnik
1.4 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2012
@ryggesogn2 If you mean the Euro, it is collapsing.
Euro is currently in a bullish retracement at 1.32 off the low of 1.18. If it breaks out this week it stands to gain about 10% until July, and potentially much more than that when your US economy collapses beginning July with the demise of the petrodollar, which has been subsidizing your unproductive consumerist rear end for the past four decades.
kochevnik
1.7 / 5 (10) Mar 25, 2012
USA will collapse after July when Iran sells oil in major currencies, not the petrodollar. The bullish US bond market will collapse and USA will become the third world

I cant wait till after July to laugh in your face.

England sure has confidence in it, they wouldn't even adopt it. Nice.
The collapse will BEGIN in July. Like a trickle likely. However short of annexing Iran there is little you yanks can do to stymy the collapse of the petrodollar and all that wealth returning your way. All your MSM BLOCKS mention of petrodollar. All that capital will flow out to the BRIC and ASAN nations which are right now forming their own commonwealth WITHOUT DOLLARS.

England is hardly a failure of the Euro. No more than Canada or Australia. After all, the Bank of England has all you silly wage slaves injecting at minimum $700billion into it's coffers yearly, in exchange for typing a number into a laptop. Hardly something to give up lightly.
ronwagn
1.2 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2012
The only real way to measure global warmin g is by sea level rise. Areas that are now deserts were once oceans. They will be again. It has little to do with mankind. We just need to move and adapt as nature demands. Ocean level rise is minimal, and very slow. This allows for easy movement of populations, provided population is not allowed to be too dense in flood areas.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (11) Mar 25, 2012
The only real way to measure global warmin g is by sea level rise.

Relative to what?
Land masses rise, sink and erode.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (10) Mar 25, 2012
http://goldprice....ros.html

Looks like the Euro has been having problems since 2005.

Looking at the 5 yr change in gold prices, the Yen has been the most stable, and then the CHF.
http://www.goldpr...old.html
Vendicar_Decarian
3.8 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2012
"If you mean the Euro, it is collapsing." - RyggTard

The Euro has fallen by around 10 percent. No crash.

http://www.exchan...AD/EUR/G

Poor RyggTard, perpetually wrong about everything.
axemaster
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2012
Hey Vendicar - none of the links you are posting are working. They're getting truncated. Thought you might want to know.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Mar 25, 2012
Hey Vendicar - none of the links you are posting are working. They're getting truncated. Thought you might want to know.
Venditard don't need no stinking references. LOL
kochevnik
2.6 / 5 (7) Mar 25, 2012
@ryggesogn2 Looks like the Euro has been having problems since 2005.
It gives me no end of pleasure to see you haven't a clue about reading a price chart. Nor do you understand what makes a currency useful for global trading. You'll be spamming physorg until you drop over dead at that rate, collecting $1/post from some obscure branch office of the Cato Institute.
the Yen has been the most stable
FYI the Sterling/Yen chart is wildly unstable ALL THE TIME. As you doubtless forgot Bush tried to start WW3 with Russia when the euro was at 1.60 in July 2008. That's how indifferent your USA is to currency values.
and then the CHF.
The Swissy was PEGGED to the Euro at a 1.20 back in September. That's why it's stable. That comes at a great price for the Swiss, but they couldn't export anything. Too many people know the G5 currencies are garbage, and the Swissy was gold-based. So odd a libertarian as yourself prefers pegging one currency to another.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Mar 25, 2012
The trouble with fiat currency is inflation.
What is the standard of reference for any currency?
The only one I know of is gold.
The price of gold in Euros started rising in 2005 implying inflation, as did many other currencies.
The price of gold in yen rose less than in USD or EUR over the same period.
Bottom line, though, money only has the value people will accept. Part of the oil price increase is due to USD inflation. Inflation being too many dollars are 'printed'.
kochevnik
2.7 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2012
Inflation being too many dollars are 'printed'.
NOT too many dollars NOW as the world collects them. There WILL be too many dollars as the world soon dumps them with Iran's open market exchange. They will all come home and you can burn them, use them for kindling or toilet paper. But your imports will fall to Argentinean levels.
The oil price increase has to do with your economic sanctions against Iran and the petrodollar flailing in value even before the death knell in July, 2012. Soon you can enjoy $8 or $16/gallon gas.
Nations are directly bartering with Iran for oil, but at the moment they can only buy finished end products, not crude. The exchange is slow now because Iran has no refineries. Now the Chinese are building Iran refineries in exchange to unlimited oil. The BRIC and ASEAN common markets will make their own deals. These economies have grown 7% last year while yours grew 1%.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Mar 25, 2012
Too ban the Iranians don't build refineries instead of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.
Unless they build their refineries underground, like their nuclear weapons enrichment labs, those refineries won't survive the first salvos.
Jimee
4 / 5 (7) Mar 25, 2012
Vendicar and others: While I agree wholeheartedly with your point of view and your analysis of deniers, I do have to take issue with your "tard" tag. The mentally retarded, or challenged as some might more correctly describe those so affected, have done nothing to deserve comparison with the deniers. Their problems do not really include willful falsehoods, or willful ignorance, or a willingness to sell future generations of Americans (and the rest of the world's population) down the river. We are all human, but the mentally challenged are not responsible for the madness of the denier mentality.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2012
"Egyptian paper Al-Ahram reports that two Egyptian citizens received instructions from Iranian agents to attack an Israeli ship, and offered a third man 50 million Egyptian pounds to carry out the act."
http://www.haaret...1.420463
I am not surprised Koch supports Iran and China.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Mar 25, 2012
Jimme, AGWites like VD (and you) can only insult since they (you) can't support their (your) faith with data.
ekim
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2012
Jimme, AGWites like VD (and you) can only insult since they (you) can't support their (your) faith with data.

Wasn't the entire article about data which supports 2001-2010 being the warmest decade. I read the article, did you? What do your posts have to do with this article? How does the price of tea in China relate to the evidence posted that global temperatures have been rising?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 26, 2012
RyggTard clearly didn't read the article he is responding to.

He exists to post mindless Libertarian/Randite resistance to science.

"Jimme, AGWites like VD (and you) can only insult since they (you) can't support their (your) faith with data." - RyggTard
Grizzled
3.1 / 5 (8) Mar 26, 2012
Has anyone noticed that the very first, highlighted in bold, paragraph of the story is nonsense? It says:

"Climate change has accelerated in the past decade, the UN weather agency said Friday, releasing data showing that 2001 to 2010 was the warmest decade on record."

Excuse me, but the "warmest on record" (even if we accept the claim) by no means implies "accelerated". If that's the level of the scientific rigor behind that study, I'd rather look elsewhere.
Urgelt
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 26, 2012
It is mind-boggling to try to follow denialist arguments. They're all over the place. One minute they're cherry-picking data to "prove" that warming isn't happening. The next they're arguing against the greenhouse gas principle - rising CO2 won't matter! A minute more and they've moved on to arguing that even if the planet does warm, it won't hurt anyone but brown people.

There is no rigor there, no consistency, no intellectual honesty, and no shame. You can't argue with them because they don't obey any rational rules of argumentation.

They have only one collective objective: to sow enough confusion into the public mind that action to preserve our species will be muddled and delayed. This protects the petroleum/coal/industrial status quo, and the ruling elites who benefit from the status quo. It does no other good thing.

Denialists break down into hired thugs who are paid for their disinformation campaigns, and idiots who blindly hate "liberal" causes. Both are pathetic.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 26, 2012
There is no rigor there, no consistency, no intellectual honesty, and no shame.

AGWites know best.
rubberman
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 26, 2012
There is no rigor there, no consistency, no intellectual honesty, and no shame.

AGWites know best.


THank you.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 26, 2012
"On shelves beside Dyson were books about stellar evolution, viruses, thermodynamics and terrorism. The climate-studies people who work with models always tend to overestimate their models, Dyson was saying. They come to believe models are real and forget they are only models. "
"Climate models, he says, take into account atmospheric motion and water levels but have no feeling for the chemistry and biology of sky, soil and trees. The biologists have essentially been pushed aside, he continues. Al Gores just an opportunist. The person who is really responsible for this overestimate of global warming is Jim Hansen. He consistently exaggerates all the dangers. "
"But I do because I think Im right. I think I have a broad view of the subject, which Hansen does not. I think its true my career doesnt depend on it, whereas his does. I never claim to be an expert on climate. I think its more a matter of judgement than knowledge. "
http://www.nytime.../29Dyson
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 26, 2012
"The costs of what Gore tells us to do would be extremely large, Dyson said. By restricting CO2 you make life more expensive and hurt the poor. Im concerned about the Chinese.

Theyre the biggest polluters, Imme replied.

Theyre also changing their standard of living the most, going from poor to middle class. To me thats very precious. "

"Dyson says its only principle that leads him to question global warming: According to the global-warming people, I say what I say because Im paid by the oil industry. Of course Im not, but thats part of their rhetoric. If you doubt it, youre a bad person, a tool of the oil or coal industry. Global warming, he added, has become a party line. "
http://www.nytime...nted=all
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Mar 26, 2012
"But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models. "
"The public does not have much use for a scientist who says, Sorry, but we dont know. "
http://www.edge.o...dex.html
ryggesogn2
1.1 / 5 (10) Mar 26, 2012
"Just a few weeks before he died, some chemists at the Carnegie Institution in Washington did a beautiful experiment in a diamond anvil cell, [Scott et al., 2004]. They mixed together tiny quantities of three things that we know exist in the mantle of the earth, and observed them at the pressure and temperature appropriate to the mantle about two hundred kilometers down. The three things were calcium carbonate which is sedimentary rock, iron oxide which is a component of igneous rock, and water. These three things are certainly present when a slab of subducted ocean floor descends from a deep ocean trench into the mantle. The experiment showed that they react quickly to produce lots of methane, which is natural gas. Knowing the result of the experiment, we can be sure that big quantities of natural gas exist in the mantle two hundred kilometers down. "
http://www.edge.o...dex.html
axemaster
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 26, 2012
ryggesogn, there's a simple reason why none of those quotes are meaningful. We can estimate the magnitude of global warming using an extremely simple method that bypasses models altogether - calculating the planetary energy imbalance. This has already been done using satellite observations, and the results fully support the scenario presented by the models.

Moreover, global warming only became a "party line issue" because the Republican party decided to make it one. Don't believe me? Well guess what, there are ACTUAL PAPER DOCUMENTS written by the top Republican political strategist a few years ago where he lays things out in stark detail. Hey look, I even found the actual document! Here!

http://www.ewg.or...ment.pdf

Go down until you see the heading "Winning the Global Warming Debate - An Overview". I think you'll agree that this is one of the most cynical things you've ever seen, even from politicians.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Mar 26, 2012
ryggesogn, there's a simple reason why none of those quotes are meaningful. We can estimate the magnitude of global warming using an extremely simple method that bypasses models altogether - calculating the planetary energy imbalance. This has already been done using satellite observations, and the results fully support the scenario presented by the models.

Probably because the models are based upon the observations.
What are the uncertainties?
That's why NPL needs to launch TRUTHS and the US wants CLARREO, to quantify the uncertainties.
BTW, "All models are wrong..." George Box.

And Axe, you know that Enron was a big supporter of the Kyoto treaty with the 'liberal' democrats?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 26, 2012
"A team of scientists led by geochemist Zunli Lu from Syracuse University in New York state, has found that contrary to the consensus, the Medieval Warm Period approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago wasnt just confined to Europe.

Read more: http://www.dailym...qF7m9Ega
"
Add a new record.
axemaster
4 / 5 (5) Mar 26, 2012
Wow, that's an inaccurate article. Of course the Medieval Warm Period was global, we've known that for a long time. Presenting that as if it were new is pretty disingenuous.
rikvanriel
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2012
@ryggesogn2 Sea level changes can be measured by satellite. In fact, they have been measured by satellite and turned out to be about an order of magnitude smaller than the early 1990's climate models suggested they should be today.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Mar 26, 2012
@ryggesogn2 Sea level changes can be measured by satellite. In fact, they have been measured by satellite and turned out to be about an order of magnitude smaller than the early 1990's climate models suggested they should be today.

Do you know the reference, like ECEF, ECI, ...?
rikvanriel
3 / 5 (2) Mar 26, 2012
This article has an easy to view graph of average sea level change, and a link to the raw data from the University of Colorado:

http://stevengodd...er-year/
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 26, 2012
This article has an easy to view graph of average sea level change, and a link to the raw data from the University of Colorado:

http://stevengodd...er-year/

AGWites assert any change in sea levels is due to more water. But the earth continues to change shape at rifts, subduction zones and isn't India still being pushed under Asia?
Tidal records wouldn't account for these changes.
Some gravity measurements might.
Howhot
5 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2012
R2, You must be really wacked out. You make the claim "AGWites assert any change in sea levels is due to more water." Of course that is correct, sea level rise will occur due to melting land based glacier ice like that on Greenland and the Antarctic. Melting ice from global temperature rise caused by the greenhouse gas effectm from emission from CO2 released by burning 100s of gigatons fossil fuels.

That will peg the meter to 10.

MarkyMark
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2012
Lol love how R2 keeps changing tactics to avoid the really sharp questions he dont like. And using the Medievall warming period is just..........WoW what. Tard as V would say!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2012
So AGWites have accounted for any changes due to rifts and subduction? North America and Europe are moving further apart, N.A. and Asia, closer, India is pushing under Asia, ...
Just wondering if AGWites have actually measured the quantity of water in oceans whose dimensions are constantly changing?
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2012
Well, no. That isn't what you have been told.

First, 30 years is a minimum.

Second, you imply consecutive 30 year intervals, when in fact it is any 30 (minimum) year time series with statistically "honest" - not cherry picked - start and end points.

"We have been told that climate is measured in 30 years spans." - RyggTard
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2012
Changes in continental drift do not occur over 30 year time spans, and changes in continental positions take place over millions of years.

Global Warming on the other hand is being observed on decadal time scales.

"So AGWites have accounted for any changes due to rifts and subduction? - RyggTard

What is your next attempt at obfuscation? That the ongoing approach of the Andromeda galaxy is altering climate.

On the other hand climate change which occurrs on geologic time scales is associated with geologic events like the breakup of the supercontinent, the rise of mountain ranges etc.

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2012
I don't think he has ever answered a single question put to him here.

"Lol love how R2 keeps changing tactics to avoid the really sharp questions he dont like." - MarkieMark

For example, he simply refuses to deal with the fact that his hero - Ayn Rand - decided to go on welfare late in her life, even though she hated everyone else who used the program.

Randite/Libertarian Filth.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2012
Another lie from the Libertarian Tard Boy.

"AGWites assert any change in sea levels is due to more water." - RyggTard

Half of the observed increase in ocean levels is occurring because of the thermal expansion of the ocean water due to it's temperature increase.

I have never encountered a Libertarian/Randite who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.7 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2012
Sorry tard boy but it is your comprehension of what was said that is the failure here.

The MWP much like the LIA were mostly regional. Nothing in this article alters that fact.

"Of course the Medieval Warm Period was global, we've known that for a long time." - axTard
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2012
That is alzheimers talking to you Tard Boy.

"Theyre the biggest polluters, Imme replied." - Freeman Dyson as quoted by RyggTard.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2012
Odd that he didn't question it when he was part of a Jason team charged by the government back in the 60's to produce a global climate model to and check if the warming claims from that era were correct.

His Jason team found that they were correct, and provided estimates of the warming to be expected that are in line with today's estimates.

"Dyson is well-aware that his "heresy" on global warming has been strongly criticized. In reply, he notes that "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much.." - Freeman Dyson

90 year old

"Dyson says its only principle that leads him to question global warming." - RyggTard
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2012
Uncertainties in what? Measurements or modeling?

Both can be found in the IPCC reports that are available to you on line.

Why not go and read them, rather than demanding that others do your homework for you?

"Probably because the models are based upon the observations.
What are the uncertainties?" - RyggTard

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2012
Claptrap.

"The only real way to measure global warmin g is by sea level rise." - foobieWoobie
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2012
Tard boy is drawing this conclusion from the price of gold in Euro's.

All currencies show the same effect, due to the increase in hording of gold by Conservative Morons.

What a moron.

"Looks like the Euro has been having problems since 2005.
Looking at the 5 yr change in gold prices" - RyggTard

Filth.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2012
Ahahahaha.... Then you clearly know nothing.

Currency valuation is based upon many factors. Amount of money in cicrulation, probability of circulation inflation, speed of circulation, trust, government debt, projected deficits, and all of these are relative to the same parameters for other nations.

"What is the standard of reference for any currency?
The only one I know of is gold." - RyggTard

Poor Libertarian RyggTard. Always wong about everything.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2012
There are many causes of inflation Tard Boy.

Which cause are you referring to?

"The trouble with fiat currency is inflation." - RyggTard

Of course "inflation" is a desired feature of the money supply, and heavily promoted by Libertarian economists.

Howhot
5 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2012
R2 asks;
Just wondering if AGWites have actually measured the quantity of water in oceans whose dimensions are constantly changing?


To which I have to ask; Who is going to pay for it?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2012
" Inflation is an increase in the quantity of money and credit. Its chief consequence is soaring prices. Therefore inflationif we misuse the term to mean the rising prices themselvesis caused solely by printing more money. For this the governments monetary policies are entirely responsible."
"The causes of inflation are not, as so often said, multiple and complex, but simply the result of printing too much money. "
http://www.thefre...ne-page/
Vendicar_Decarian
4.7 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2012
The freeman is a Libertarian publication in which know nothing Libertarians tell themselves why their movement is so great.

At best it is a propaganda rag. At worst it is a juvenile support group for the intellectually incompetent.

Today I collude with other pencil makers to increase my pencil prices by 1 percent.

Tomorrow my workers increase their wage demands by 1 percent to compensate.

The velocity of money increases by 1 percent as a result.

The final result is an inflation rate of 1 percent in pencils.

No money has been created, and RyggTard's Libertarian publication is shown to be the mindless rag that it is.

"Inflation is an increase in the quantity of money and credit." - The Freeman
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2012
Today with the election of Libertarian Ron Paul, there is loss of faith in the ability of America to govern, and the value of the American dollar drops by 50 percent.

As a result the cost if imports rise and the cost of the basket of goods used to measure the inflation rate increases.

Workers demand wage increases as a result and businesses raise prices as a result. Eventually the price/cost escalation stabilizes with wages and prices significantly higher than before the devaluation of the dollar.

No money has been created, and RygtgTard's Libertarian economic ideology is shown to be idiotic nonsense once again.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2012
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Mar 28, 2012
Hasn't happened yet.

"Winter 2012" - RyggTard

But winter 2011 has. Extreme and unusual warmth in North America and extreme and unusual cold in Europe.

More astonishing weather extremes caused by Global Warming.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Mar 28, 2012
@VDitard,

Hasn't happened yet.

"Winter 2012" - RyggTard

But winter 2011 has. Extreme and unusual warmth in North America and extreme and unusual cold in Europe.

More astonishing weather extremes caused by Global Warming.
Aren't you the one always spouting off that weather isn't climate?
rikvanriel
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2012
@avontuba: apparently you just don't know how it works.

If it's cold, it's weather. If it's warm, it's climate.
ubavontuba
1.1 / 5 (12) Mar 28, 2012
@avontuba: apparently you just don't know how it works.

If it's cold, it's weather. If it's warm, it's climate.
So if there's a record breaking snowstorm, it's weather? But if there's a heatwave, it's global warming? How clever!

These guys must shake the very soul of casino owners. They can't lose!

MarkyMark
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2012
Actually saying nonsence like hmm normal weather in ( name of city\state here) is weather global treds are however climate sych as colder than normal weather or warmer. Such as having really cold winter in Europe and a really warm winter in America due to disruption of majour wind and water currents due to a fluctuation caused by too much energy in the system!

Quite why you cant see this is probably because your education and worldview is very shortsighted in both scale and time.
mosahlah
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2012
The screams of impending doom ring louder and louder. I guess I need an advanced degree, millions of dollars worth of instruments, and an expedition to Greenland to appreciate this horror. Not much climate change around here except the annual change of seasons.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Mar 29, 2012
Actually saying nonsence like hmm normal weather in ( name of city\state here) is weather global treds are however climate sych as colder than normal weather or warmer. Such as having really cold winter in Europe and a really warm winter in America due to disruption of majour wind and water currents due to a fluctuation caused by too much energy in the system!

Quite why you cant see this is probably because your education and worldview is very shortsighted in both scale and time.

It's called the Arctic oscillation, nimrod.

http://en.wikiped...illation

"The Arctic oscillation is an index (which varies over time with no particular periodicity)..."
tkjtkj
3.3 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2012
IMO the people (including most rigorous scientists) simply don't care about reality, when material motivations are involved and it has no further meaning to speculate about it. Global warming is real, glacier melting is real, climate extremes are real, acidification of oceans and coral bleaching is real - but are all these changes made be people? This is still question. Can we face it in another way, than with massive implementation of cold fusion? Of course not.


But your 'question' is irrelevant: it matters not what are the causes.. what does matter are only the influences that we can modify: human behaviours. We probablly can not modify many other possible causes of this process but we cAN affect that one!.. if there is a strong-enough will to ignore the deniers, a will to survive.

To think otherwise is to live in the world of red-herrings, which also might become as extinct as we certainly will be.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2012
but we cAN modify one reasonably-believable influence: human behaviour

Who is 'we' and how do you plan to 'modify' behavior?
The dictator of Romania decided to modify behavior by banning birth control and abortions to increase the population of his socialist tyranny.
Why increase population? The population was decreasing due to socialism: no hope, no money, little food; Since he didn't change his socialist policies, more children were born that parents could not care for. And the state couldn't either resulting in a horror for the orphans.
How do AGW central planners want to modify behavior and what are the unintended consequences?
Howhot
3.3 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2012
2001-2010 warmest decade on record

R2 asks "How do AGW central planners want to modify behavior and what are the unintended consequences?" May I ask you, R2, the same question? I'm pretty sure your a survivalist what the heck do you care about the future. You have always been the kind of " bring it on " sort.

As an AGW central planner, I would make sure that deniers are taken to UN mandated re-education camps. You know, for reverse brain-washing to cleans people of these unspeakable assaults on the environment.

Yeah, the non believers should be made to pay an extra-stupid tax on top of the CO2 tax that coal producers would be paying.

You AGW DENIERS are like turtles crossing a highway, oblivious to to the cars. Unforgivably though, your attitude is dragging us right across the road with you.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2012
Oh yeah, crap like this is sure to win over converts to your cause (NOT!).

As an AGW central planner, I would make sure that deniers are taken to UN mandated re-education camps. You know, for reverse brain-washing to cleans people of these unspeakable assaults on the environment.
For the sake of those who actually lived through some of these nightmares, to even joke about it is despicable (and if you're serious, you're a monster).

Yeah, the non believers should be made to pay an extra-stupid tax on top of the CO2 tax that coal producers would be paying.
So it's about "belief" and not science now? Really?

You AGW DENIERS are like turtles crossing a highway, oblivious to to the cars. Unforgivably though, your attitude is dragging us right across the road with you
And you're like the turtle which stays behind, only to be crushed under the wheels of the onrushing big-rig, the other turtles were bright enough to escape.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2012
A team of geodesists at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography has released a papercontradicting reports that Venice had stopped sinking. In fact it's subsiding faster than ever.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
Perhaps that is why I made a distinction between climate and weather.

"Aren't you the one always spouting off that weather isn't climate?" - UbVonTard

Do you intend to be a fool for the rest of your life?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
No. If it is dominated by high frequency transients then it is weather. If it is a slow moving change on the order of 30 years then it is climate.

"If it's cold, it's weather. If it's warm, it's climate." - RikvTard

It seems that you need quite a bit of education.

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2012
Where is your "here"?

"Not much climate change around here except the annual change of seasons." - MosaTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
Odd that this oscillation has never brought North America a winter season with nearly continuous spring and fall like temperatures before, with a week of summer thrown in at the end.

"It's called the Arctic oscillation, nimrod." - UbVonTard

Why is the oscillation changing?

Could it be the invisible volcanic eruptions on the moon as your denialist brothers have claimed?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
A very good thing indeed.

"The population was decreasing due to socialism:" - RyggTard

Viva Socialism.

Wait. What is causing the fertility decline in America?
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2012
Capital crimes against nature and humanity are punishable by execution.

It would appear that most of those bodies will come from American Conservatives and Libertarians.

I will happily pull the trigger as many times as needed, and I will even happily supply my own bullets.

"For the sake of those who actually lived through some of these nightmares, to even joke about it is despicable (and if you're serious, you're a monster)." - UbVonTard

I can hear the rumbling of revolution already.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2012
Perhaps that is why I made a distinction between climate and weather.
But you clearly cited a circumstance of weather as proof of global warming!

Do you intend to be a fool for the rest of your life?
If a fool is one who can perceive truth beyond the vile spray of your malicious arguments, then yes.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
As a scientist the only proof I offer is mathematical.

On the other hand, as an ignorant child, you have no concept of how to use the word.

"But you clearly cited a circumstance of weather as proof of global warming!" - UbVonTard
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2012
Then you have just stated that you intend to be a congenital liar for the rest of your life, you are only worthy of death.

"If a fool is one who can perceive truth beyond the vile spray of your malicious arguments, then yes." - UbVonTard
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2012
Odd that this oscillation has never brought North America a winter season with nearly continuous spring and fall like temperatures before, with a week of summer thrown in at the end.
That's not true. I've experienced many an extended dry and warm spell in winter. The only thing unusual this year was that it had staying power.

Usually El Nino and La Nina play larger roles anyway. But sometimes, the Arctic oscillation and ocean surface temp anomalies converge. In those years, it's anyone's guess what'll happen.

Where do you live? We've had solid winter, most of March. and boy do I mean winter. The snow is piling up in the mountains faster than they can plow it.

Why is the oscillation changing?
It's not changing, insofar as it's always been unpredictable.

Could it be the invisible volcanic eruptions on the moon as your denialist brothers have claimed? Naw. More likely, it's a result of the acne on your face.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 01, 2012
Capital crimes against nature and humanity are punishable by execution.

It would appear that most of those bodies will come from American Conservatives and Libertarians.

I will happily pull the trigger as many times as needed, and I will even happily supply my own bullets.
I always knew you were nasty, but now the whole truth comes out. You're a monster.

I can hear the rumbling of revolution already.
Sicko.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2012
As a scientist the only proof I offer is mathematical.
You're no scientist. Your use of the word to describe yourself is an insult to real scientists.

On the other hand, as an ignorant child, you have no concept of how to use the word.
Why don't you tell us more about your imaginary frozen cherry blossoms?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 01, 2012
If a fool is one who can perceive truth beyond the vile spray of your malicious arguments, then yes.
Then you have just stated that you intend to be a congenital liar for the rest of your life, you are only worthy of death.
You just proved my point for me, sicko.


Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2012
"That's not true. I've experienced many an extended dry and warm spell in winter." - UbVonTard

But never before has North America experienced experienced a winter like this one. A climatological winter that never arrived.

"We've had solid winter, most of March." - UbVonTard

Historic heat in North America turns winter into summer.
http://earthobser...id=77465

A huge, lingering ridge of high pressure over the eastern half of the United States brought summer-like temperatures to North America in March 2012. The warm weather shattered records across the central and eastern United States and much of Canada.

Records are not only being broken across the country, they're being broken in unusual ways. Chicago, for example, saw temperatures above 26.6°Celsius (80°Fahrenheit) every day between March 14-18, breaking records on all five days. For context, the National Weather Service noted that Chicago typically averages only one day in the eighties each in April.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2012
Right now I am a quiescent monster.

"You're a monster." - UbVonTard

But I don't see that being the case for much longer.

Do you hear the bloody revolution coming?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 01, 2012
But never before has North America experienced experienced a winter like this one. A climatological winter that never arrived.

Historic heat in North America turns winter into summer.
Weather isn't climate. Last year, most of this same area was buried in an avalanche of snow. So what?

Globally, this has been a cold winter. Global February land temperatures were the coolest in 18 years! Even the NOAA is starting to use words like "coolest."

"Separately, the global land surface temperature was 0.38°C (0.68°F) above the 20th century average of 3.2°C (37.8°F), making this the 37th warmest February on record and the coolest February since 1994. It was also the coolest month on record since January 2008."

http://www.ncdc.n.../global/
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 01, 2012
But never before has North America experienced experienced a winter like this one. A climatological winter that never arrived.

Historic heat in North America turns winter into summer.
Weather isn't climate. Last year, most of this same area was buried in an avalanche of snow. So what?

Globally, this has been a cold winter. Global February land temperatures were the coolest in 18 years! Even the NOAA is starting to use words like "coolest."

"Separately, the global land surface temperature was 0.38°C (0.68°F) above the 20th century average of 3.2°C (37.8°F), making this the 37th warmest February on record and the coolest February since 1994. It was also the coolest month on record since January 2008."

http://www.ncdc.n.../global/
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 01, 2012
Right now I am a quiescent monster.

"You're a monster." - UbVonTard

But I don't see that being the case for much longer.

Do you hear the bloody revolution coming?
Sicko.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2012
Such unusual extremes in weather are what the climate models predict as a chaotic system is perturbed from one set of attractors to another.

Radically extreme events like this years missing North American winter are the stepping stones across which the climate system will traverse from one climate mode to another, radically different, mode.

This is the nature of chaos.

"Weather isn't climate. Last year, most of this same area was buried in an avalanche of snow. So what?" - UbVonTard
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2012
"Those who will not live by the law, shall die by the law." - Moses

"Sicko." - UbVonTard

http://www.youtub...ure=plcp
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2012
"Globally, this has been a cold winter." - UbVonTard

Relatively cold. Yet exceptionally warm historically.

MorituriMax
3 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2012
"It would appear that most of those bodies will come from American Conservatives and Libertarians."

Can we also pass mass execution orders for youtube blowhards? While we're ignoring how the justice system works anyways?
Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2012
All things are possible at zombo.com

"Can we also pass mass execution orders for youtube blowhards?" - Morituri

http://zombo.com/
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 02, 2012
Such unusual extremes in weather are what the climate models predict as a chaotic system is perturbed from one set of attractors to another.

Radically extreme events like this years missing North American winter are the stepping stones across which the climate system will traverse from one climate mode to another, radically different, mode.

This is the nature of chaos.
It's the nature of weather, not climate.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 02, 2012
"Globally, this has been a cold winter." - Uba

Relatively cold. Yet exceptionally warm historically.
It's only been warm in North America, and that's the result of the Arctic Oscillation. Virtually everywhere else it's been quite cool (even the NOAA remarked that it's been cool).
Howhot
5 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2012
Ubababab says;
Weather isn't climate.


No it is not! What Climate is defined as is a weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period. Climate CHANGE means that weather is CHANGING. With human induced global warming the long term weather patterns are changing. It's that simple. It could not be simpler;

Global Warming = Climate Change.

And to top it off; global warming is caused by man using and burning fossil fuels dug up from the ground. If we stopped there would not be global warming and climate change would settle back into a steady state.

So; global warming = climate change. Every grade school kid is taught that. It a fact of science that climate is representation of a dynamic energy system. It follow thermodynamics and chaotic mixing, fluid dynamics and an number of oceanographic sciences, atmospherics sciences rolled into one.

When the United Nations comes out and says there is a problem; you can bet there is a big problem.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2012
Such unusual extremes in weather are what the climate models predict as a chaotic system is perturbed from one set of attractors to another.

Radically extreme events like this years missing North American winter are the stepping stones across which the climate system will traverse from one climate mode to another, radically different, mode.

This is the nature of chaos.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 02, 2012
No it is not! What Climate is defined as is a weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period. Climate CHANGE means that weather is CHANGING. With human induced global warming the long term weather patterns are changing. It's that simple. It could not be simpler;
So what?

Global Warming = Climate Change.
I never suggested otehrwise.

And to top it off; global warming is caused by man using and burning fossil fuels dug up from the ground. If we stopped there would not be global warming and climate change would settle back into a steady state.
Climate isn't a "steady state."

And, if CO2 was such a contributing factor, why hasn't the world warmed in correlation with CO2 increases for the past 14 years?

When the United Nations comes out and says there is a problem; you can bet there is a big problem.
Really? You mean they aren't just people too?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 02, 2012
Such unusual extremes in weather are what the climate models predict as a chaotic system is perturbed from one set of attractors to another.

Radically extreme events like this years missing North American winter are the stepping stones across which the climate system will traverse from one climate mode to another, radically different, mode.

This is the nature of chaos.
Oh brother. Now you're just trying to frighten people with weather. OMG! It's raining! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! LOL

The truth is, a warm earth is a more livable world. And the proof is, the biosphere is booming.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2012
The truth is, a warm earth is a more livable world

History would say otherwise! I'm not an OMG the sky is falling kind of guy. BUT... the atmosphere is probably saying it. OMG what are you dumping into us, and how much? Such a lame-o argument Uba.

Kinedryl
1 / 5 (1) Apr 03, 2012
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 03, 2012
History would say otherwise

What history?
History shows that civilizations grow as the climate warms and decline when it cools.
"An examination of the record of the last twelve millennia reveals that mankind prospered during the warm periods and suffered during the cold ones."
http://www.stanfo...Man.html
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2012
"The IPCCs Special Report on Extremes, released March 28, reads, There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized [property] losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change."
http://www.washin...eversal/
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2012
The truth is, a warm earth is a more livable world

History would say otherwise!
What history? Provide references.

Do you even have a clue how many millions died as a result of the ending of the Medieval Warm Period?

http://en.wikiped...0%931317

I'm not an OMG the sky is falling kind of guy.
Really? You had me fooled.

BUT... the atmosphere is probably saying it. OMG what are you dumping into us, and how much? Such a lame-o argument Uba.
This is a perfect example of AGWite ignorance. I mean really. Do you even bother to check ANY information before you spout off?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.