US spring warming off the charts

Jun 07, 2012
A couple (L) enjoys the sunny weather as tulips bloom at Lafayette Park in front of the White House in Washington, DC, in March 2012. The continental United States experienced the warmest spring on record this year, with temperatures far above the average over the past century, government scientists said Thursday.

The continental United States experienced the warmest spring on record this year, with temperatures far above the average over the past century, government scientists said Thursday.

The United States, excluding Alaska, Hawaii and overseas territories, had an average temperature of 57.1 (13.9 Celsius) from March through May, 5.2 degrees (2.9 Celsius) above the average from 1901 to 2000, the data showed.

"Spring 2012 marked the largest temperature departure from average of any season on record for the contiguous United States," the said in a statement.

This year's spring was up 2.0 degrees (1.1 Celsius) from the previous warmest spring in the United States which was recorded in 1910, the agency said.

The year from June 2011 through May also marked the warmest 12-month period on record after a hot summer and warmer winter. The average temperature was 3.2 degrees (1.8 Celsius) above average, the agency said.

In terms of monthly figures, the United States experienced the warmest March, the third warmest April and the second warmest May, the agency said.

Scientists have repeatedly warned that emissions of greenhouse gases, largely through industrial activity, are heating up the planet and could spell serious long-term problems, including the extinction of plant and animal species and the flooding of low-lying islands.

UN-led efforts for a new global have moved slowly. Climate change remains a controversial topic in the United States, with many prominent members of the Republican Party casting doubt on the science.

Proposals backed by President and his Democratic allies to mandate cuts in emissions have died in Congress. Critics say the measures would be too costly to a fragile economy.

US emissions of rose in 2010 after a brief downward turn, according to official data.

China has surpassed the United States as the largest emitter. The Asian power has pledged to reduce the intensity of its emissions per unit of economic growth, but not in absolute terms.

Explore further: US delays decision on Keystone pipeline project

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

2001-2010 warmest decade on record: WMO

Mar 23, 2012

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.

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.

Earth records 7th warmest July on record

Aug 15, 2007

Scientists said the month of July brought record and near-record warmth to the Western United States and was the seventh warmest July in recorded Earth history.

Recommended for you

US delays decision on Keystone pipeline project

Apr 18, 2014

The United States announced Friday a fresh delay on a final decision regarding a controversial Canada to US oil pipeline, saying more time was needed to carry out a review.

New research on Earth's carbon budget

Apr 18, 2014

(Phys.org) —Results from a research project involving scientists from the Desert Research Institute have generated new findings surrounding some of the unknowns of changes in climate and the degree to which ...

User comments : 174

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

jerryd
5 / 5 (7) Jun 07, 2012
That is a lot!!!
irjsiq
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 07, 2012
What caused the 'unusual' warming in 1910?
jdw
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 07, 2012
Feels great! Just think, there could be a mile-thick sheet of ice or a warm sea right where I'm now enjoying perfect temperatures and lush growth!

But, give it a few dozen centuries, or even an era or two. It could go either way, really.
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (21) Jun 07, 2012
Many of the states warmest consecutive 12 months are still in the 1930s, a few in the 1920s, Maine in 1913 and Arizona in 1896.

And thats with some of the old data artificially cooled by adjustments.

http://wattsupwit...records/
mrtea
3.8 / 5 (10) Jun 08, 2012
How can you have 'many' of the warmest consecutive 12 months? 'Warmest' is a superlative.

"Spring 2012 marked the largest temperature departure from average of any season on record for the contiguous United States,"

"This year's spring was up 2.0 degrees (1.1 Celsius) from the previous warmest spring in the United States which was recorded in 1910"

"The year from June 2011 through May also marked the warmest 12-month period on record after a hot summer and warmer winter."

Global temperatures are climbing relentlessly, in spite of La Nina and other natural forcings.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 08, 2012
Given that 1910 was an abnormally cold year, one has to wonder what kind of brain damage IrisqTard is suffering from.

http://www.woodfo.../to:2012

"What caused the 'unusual' warming in 1910?" - IrisqTard

Tards to the left of me.... Tards to the right of me...
la7dfa
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 08, 2012
Parker must be a comedian...
http://www.guardi...er-study
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 08, 2012
The U.S. constitutes only 2 percent of the earth's surface, hence is is a worthless proxy for global temperatures.

http://www.woodfo...91/trend

Globally on the other hand the 20 years surrounding the 1930's averaged -0.2'C and the last 20 years has averaged about 0.4'C, indicating an overall warming of around 0.6'C.

"Many of the states warmest consecutive 12 months are still in the 1930s" - ParkerTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 08, 2012
There is generally a single global warming denialist associated with every science site on the net.

"Parker must be a comedian..." - la7dfa

They are placed by Libertarian propaganda organizations like CATO, CEI, AEI etc., for the purpose of spreading the denialist lie.
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 08, 2012
"What caused the 'unusual' warming in 1910?" Could you show us data to support your comment? Here is some data on northern latitude temperatures http://data.giss....ig.B.gif I don't see any anomalies for 1910! So here is a comparison for spring in just the U.S. - 2012 http://climvis.nc...splay.pl]http://climvis.nc...splay.pl[/url] vs 1910 http://climvis.nc...splay.pl]http://climvis.nc...splay.pl[/url]
NotParker
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 08, 2012
Given that 1910 was an abnormally cold year, one has to wonder what kind of brain damage IrisqTard is suffering from.


Well, he was smart enough to know the previous record holder for warmest March was 1910.
NotParker
2 / 5 (12) Jun 08, 2012

Globally on the other hand the 20 years surrounding the 1930's averaged -0.2'C and the last 20 years has averaged about 0.4'C, indicating an overall warming of around 0.6'C.


However .... globally 1944 was only .2C colder than 2011.

.2c is microscopic and well within the margin of error.

And in fact Jan 2011 and Jan 2012 were colder than Jan 1944.

2011 was essentially the same temperature as 1944 when you consider population growth, UHI and heat bubbles improperly accounted for.

And then the scandal of the adjusting dowwards of past US data ... shameful.
SatanLover
1.3 / 5 (31) Jun 08, 2012
Cherry picking weather again... sigh, would you like to join my evil army? Remember to bring a goat.
NotParker
2 / 5 (12) Jun 08, 2012
Many of the states warmest consecutive 12 months are still in the 1930s.


What is tragic is that the NOAA has been adjusting the past cooler by 3F.

The 30s are still the warmest, just not on the NOAA crooked books.

http://wattsupwit...re-65130
djr
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 08, 2012
"The 30s are still the warmest, just not on the NOAA crooked books."

By what metric?
http://www.woodfo.../to:2012]http://www.woodfo.../to:2012[/url]
http://www.woodfo.../to:2012
http://www.woodfo...91/trend
http://www.woodfo.../to:2012]http://www.woodfo.../to:2012[/url]
http://www.woodfo.../to:2012
Northern hemisphere only
http://www.woodfo.../to:2012

Oh I see - you pick one month, in one state, in one country - and want to say that informs us about the global cimate!!!!!!

NotParker
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 08, 2012

Oh I see - you pick one month, in one state, in one country - and want to say that informs us about the global cimate!!!!!!



24 out of the 48 continental states had the warmest consecutive 12 months before 1950.

Thats half.

17 of the 48 had the warmest consecutive 12 months in 2011/2012.

AGW logic:

17 out of 48 are warm: Apocalypse
24 out of 48 not as warm as before 1950: USA is teensy, tiny part of the world.

People do not live in the GAT. They live in cities or regions or states. Some are cooling, some are not and many were the warmest ever in the 1930s or 1920s.

djr
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 08, 2012
24 out of the 48 continental states had the warmest consecutive 12 months before 1950.

What a bunch of claptrap Parker. Look at the charts I referenced. All the data shows the globe is warming - you pick details here and there - and claim it proves anything. You are delusional. I understand why Vendi gets so frustrated. It is so pointless arguing with you. Thinking that putting "24 out of the 48 continental states had the warmest consecutive 12 months before 1950." up against the array of global data I referenced is just ignorant cherry picking. By selecting the U.S. - you are cherry picking. Take a look at these three graphs to see what I mean. http://www.epa.go...ure.html

Of course you will find some cherry picked fact that in your mind proves that it is warming in Kansas - therefore all global warming is false.....

NotParker
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 08, 2012
24 out of the 48 continental states had the warmest consecutive 12 months before 1950.

What a bunch of claptrap Parker. Look at the charts I referenced. All the data shows the globe is warming -


The cherry-picked Global Average Temperature is up a fraction from 1944.

But people live in states or counties. Just because the GAT is up a tiny bit doesn't mean people don't live where it isn't warming or it is cooling.

And people need to make decisions based on their home region. If a farmer lives in a cooling state or region, telling him to plant crops that need warmer temperatures is cruel.

Trying to shut me up so you can peddle your claptrap is sad.

Where I live temperature is down over 1C from where it was 8 or 9 years ago.

And none of the "Climate Change" conmen mention it.

People need to make INFORMED decisions.
NotParker
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 08, 2012
Of course you will find some cherry picked fact


In Washington State, May 2012 was 7.3F colder than the record (1958). It is ranked 35 out of 118 May's which means 83 May's were warmer.

Oregon was ranked 38 out of 118 - 80 were warmer.

Alaska is cold too. BC's May is .7C colder than normal.

The PDO has switched to the cold phase and those phases can last 30 years.

Only 25 more to go.

There may be Regional Warming. But not on the West Coast. It is cold here.

And lying to the people of the West Coast is cruel.
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 08, 2012
In Washington State, May 2012 was 7.3F colder than the record (1958). It is ranked 35 out of 118 May's which means 83 May's were warmer.

Oregon was ranked 38 out of 118 - 80 were warmer.

Alaska is cold too. BC's May is .7C colder than normal.

The PDO has switched to the cold phase and those phases can last 30 years.

Only 25 more to go.

There may be Regional Warming. But not on the West Coast. It is cold here.

And lying to the people of the West Coast is cruel.


California May 2012 not as cold. 95 out of 118. Only 23 warmer.

2011 was ranked 30. 88 were warmer.

2010 was ranked 13. 105 were warmer.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 08, 2012
All the data shows the globe is warming


Lets say 25% of the land area warms by 1C over 10 years. And 75% does not.

The GAT will go up .25C.

So the questions then become:

1) Why is most of the world not warming?

2) If only part of the world is warming then blaming CO2 seems silly because the CO2 theory requires all of the world to warm.

3) Is there a reason why it went up? Such as increased sunshine?

http://sunshineho...us-tmax/

4) It it was sunshine or some other climate variable then it is wrong to blame CO2.

5) If warming was longer or stronger int he 1930s because of some unknown mechanism, why would normal people not think it is the same mechanism.

The PDO drives a lerge part of the earths climate. The PDO switched around 2008 from warm to cold. The west coast is colder. That cold may well spread to the rest of the world. The 1998 peak came when the PDO had been warm for 20 years.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 08, 2012
Washington state comprises only about 0.036 percent of the earth's surface.

Gosh, ParkerTard is now so desparate to cherry pick he is now relegated to looking for monthly extremes to choose from.

"In Washington State, May 2012 was 7.3F colder than the record (1958)." - ParkerTard

The fact is, Washington State shows a warming trend of .06C' per decade.

Now ParkerTard will respond that in his backyard at 2:PM on Oct 21, 1918 the temperature was 4'C warmer than at 2:AM on Jan 21 2012, and therefore the planet must be cooling.

Unlike the average 8 year old, ParkerTard just can't seem to figure out the difference between climate and weather.

Of course he is paid to be that stupid.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 08, 2012
Arizona Warming trend 0.12'F per decade.
California Warming trend 0.07'F per decade.
Colorado Warming trend 0.15'F per decade.
Connecticut Warming trend 0.16'F per decade.
Delaware Warming trend 0.16'F per decade.
Florida Warming trend 0.04'F per decade.
Idaho Warming trend 0.10'F per decade.
Illinois Warming trend 0.04'F per decade
Indiana Warming trend 0.03'F per decade
Iowa Warming Trend 0.09'F per decade
Kansas Warming Trend 0.08'F per decade
Kentucky Warming Trend 0.01'F per decade
Louisiana Warming trend 0.01'F per decade
Maryland Warming trend 0.18'F per decade
Massachusetts Warming trend 0.11'F per decade
Michigan Warming trend 0.01'F per decade
Minnesota Warming trend 0.14'F per decade
Missouri Warming trend 0.05'F per decade
Montana Warming trend 0.14'F per decade
Nebraska Warming trend 0.08'F per decade
Nevada Warming trend 0.24'F per decade

Cont...

NotParker
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 08, 2012
Washington state comprises only about 0.036 percent of the earth's surface.

Gosh, ParkerTard is now so desparate to cherry pick he is now relegated to looking for monthly extremes to choose from.

"In Washington State, May 2012 was 7.3F colder than the record (1958)." - ParkerTard

The fact is, Washington State shows a warming trend of .06C' per decade.


From 1986 to 2011. 25 years.

Cooling at -0.38 degF / Decade.

People can check:

http://www.ncdc.n.../wa.html
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 08, 2012
Florida Warming trend 0.04'F per decade.


Pretty low. And it is 0 from 1921. Not much warming at all.

Here is the list of states cooling from 1921. (Plus Ohio since .01F is so small)

https://sunshineh...1921.jpg

Not much of an argument for "Global" warming is it?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2012
New Hampshire Warming trend 0.18'F per decade
New Jersey Warming Trend 0.21'F per decade
New Mexico Warming Trend 0.09'F per decade
New York Warming Trend 0.13'F per decade
North Carolina Warming Trend 0.01'F per decade
North Dakota Warming trend 0.26'F per decade
Ohio Warming trend 0.08'F per decade
Oklahoma Warming trend 0.08'F per decade
Oregon Warming trend 0.09'F per decade
Pennsylvania Warming trend 0.01'F per decade
Rhode Island Warming trend 0.24'F per decade

Cont...
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2012
South Dakota Warming trend 0.12'F per decade
Utah Warming trend 0.21'F per decade
Vermont Warming trend 0.16'F per decade
Virginia Warming trend 0.06'F per decade
Washington Warming trend 0.05'F per decade
Wisconsin Warming trend 0.10'F per decade
Wyomng Warming Trend 0.16'F per decade

Source
http://www.ncdc.n...ag3.html

Alaska Warming trend 0.42'F per decade

http://www.real-s...ompetent

Hawaii Warming trend 0.30'F per decade

http://jenniferma...-hawaii/

Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2012
I count 41 states warming and 4 not changing, leaving only 5 states that are cooling.

And yet all of ParkerTard's state trends seem to come from those 5 cooling states.

What an Amazing coincidence.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2012
ParkerTard's Denialist blog doesn't seem to agree with the data from the NOAA.

Mostly because it is fabricated nonsense.

"Here is the list of states cooling from 1921. (Plus Ohio since .01F is so small)" - ParkerTard

Liar, Liar... Pants on Fire...
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2012
ParkerTard's Denialist blog doesn't seem to agree with the data from the NOAA.

Mostly because it is fabricated nonsense.

"Here is the list of states cooling from 1921. (Plus Ohio since .01F is so small)" - ParkerTard

Liar, Liar... Pants on Fire...


Go back and put 1921 in as the start date for all the NOAA data.

I admit many states warmed from 1895 to 1921.

Alabama 1895 to 1921: Warming at 0.31 degF / Decade (well before CO2)

Alabama 1921 to 2011 : Cooling at -0.19 degF / Decade

Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2012
Cherry picking and outright lying are ParkerTard's only way of coping with reality.

"Go back and put 1921 in as the start date for all the NOAA data. " - ParkerTard

According the the NOAA... 41 states warming and 4 not changing, leaving only 5 states that are cooling.

Poor ParkerTard. He is mentally ill.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2012
Yup, Alabama is 1 of the 5 states in the U.S. that show some cooling.

"Alabama 1921 to 2011 : Cooling at -0.19 degF / Decade " - ParkerTard

According to the NOAA it is cooling at a rate of 0.07'F per decade. Poor Parkertard. Caught lying again.

http://www.ncdc.n...ag3.html

Alabama isn't representative of the U.S. let alone representative of the rest of the 99.97 percent of the earth's surface.

Poor ParkerTard. Next week he will be insisting that the temperature inside his refrigerator is declining and is proof that the earth's temperature is decreasing.

He is mentally diseased.
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2012
Thanks VD for offering to go back and do trends from 1895 to 1921 and 1921 to 2011 for each state.

It should be fascinating.

And I really appreciate you pointing out how much it warmed from 1895 to 1921.

Wow. Puts modern "warming" to shame.

And here's Arkansas from 1895.

https://sunshineh...1895.png

Notice the warming from 1895 to 1921.

Here are a bunch more. Same pattern. Warming to 1920s. Then cooling for decades. And then some warming that doesn't quite match the warming from 1895.

http://sunshineho...part-1a/

The blue Loess curve is the real climate signal. Natural.
djr
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2012
Thanks VD for offering to go back and do trends from 1895 to 1921 and 1921 to 2011 for each state. Why would anyone need to waste their time parsing sub sets of data? Vendi already showed you that 41 states have warmed over the past century - do you not understand that the longer your time frame - the more reliable your data - why do you have to break everything up into tiny chunks - oh right it allows you to pick out the data values that fit your position - commonly referred to as cherry picking.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2012
You are very welcome Tard Boy.

"Thanks VD for offering to go back and do trends from 1895 to 1921 and 1921 to 2011 for each state." - ParkerTard

"Same pattern. Warming to 1920s. Then cooling for decades" - ParkerTard

Yes, the cooling seen is attributable to sulfate haze pollution, and has been recognized since the 1960's as a source of cooling.

Why you fail to know this is your problem, not mine.

Poor mentally diseased ParkerTard.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2012
What a shame your source's trend data doesn't mesh with the trends produced by the NOAA.

Fabricating data is a common tactic among you and your denialist brothers.

"The blue Loess curve is the real climate signal." - ParkerTard

I blame Conservatard inbreeding.
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2012
Thanks VD for offering to go back and do trends from 1895 to 1921 and 1921 to 2011 for each state.


Don't renege. Go back and show all the trends from 1921 to 2011.

NotParker
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2012
why do you have to break everything up into tiny chunks


For understanding.

A GAT increase of .2C over 130 years is microscopic. And all of it is because of cherry-picking stations 1000 stations out of the 6000 available.

The great tragedy is even with the states data demolishing the CO2 myth, the NOAA is altering even more data to make the past cooler than it was.

http://notalotofp...t-again/

They are terrified of people finding out the 20s and 30s were warmer.

It will ruin the con game.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2012
Sorry ParkerTard, but I am not interested in cherry picking any dates to change the claimed warming trend as you dishonestly do.

"Go back and show all the trends from 1921 to 2011." - ParkerTard

You are mentally diseased ParkerTard. Get psychiatric help.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2012
But the observed rise of 0.74'C isn't.

"A GAT increase of .2C over 130 years is microscopic." - ParkerTard

Poor mentally diseased ParkerTard.

"The great tragedy is even with the states data demolishing the CO2 myth" - ParkerTard.

Your link is to a denialist blog harping on the trivial Alabama cooling again.

Sorry ParkerTard, but the other 41 states that show warming don't really care about the 4 states that show cooling.

And the rest of the world which constitutes 99.97 percent of what is NOT Alabama cares even less.

Perhaps you should try and use the temperature inside your freezer as proof that the globe is cooling.

Poor mentally diseased ParkerTard.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2012
All them evils scientistists all over the worlds is just in a conspiracies to makes yooz look stupid.

"the NOAA is altering even more data to make the past cooler than it was." - ParkerTard

Sorry Tard Boy... But you do that daily, all by yourself.

Get a silver hat boy. Avoid those Martian moon beams.

djr
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2012
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2012
They are terrified of people finding out the 20s and 30s were warmer. Except they were not warming - maybe in your front room - but take a look at all of the data trends I just posted - the 20's and 30's were not warmer - please post global data to show the 20's and 30's were warmer than today.....
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2012
As the above plots by dir clearly show, the 20's and 30's were not warmer.

"They are terrified of people finding out the 20s and 30s were warmer." - ParkerTard

Liar... Liar... Pants on Fire....

The truth is that ParkerTard and his corporate paymasters are the ones who are filled with fear. Fear of lowered profits for the garbage they want people to burn.

So fearful is ParkerTard that he will claim any absurdity rather than accept the reality that the globe is warming.

What a pathetic coward.
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2012
Come on VD. Quit reneging.

Go back to NOAA and do 1895 trends to 1921 and 1921 to 2011.

I did the first oen for you:

Alabama 1895 to 1921: Warming at 0.31 degF / Decade (well before CO2)

Alabama 1921 to 2011 : Cooling at -0.19 degF / Decade

Absolutely MASSIVE WARMING in 1895 - 1921. Natural massive warming. Non-CO2 warming.

Thanks for bringing that to our attention VD.
SatanLover
1.3 / 5 (28) Jun 09, 2012
In the name of Satan i am commanding NotParker to shut his mouth! OR i will sacrifice this goat and use voodoo to sew his mouth shut.
We have been compromised, the humans have caught us. They figured out our CO2 robots are turning the Earth into a flaming ball of death. Stop convincing them otherwise it is wasted energy.
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2012
VD: Liar... Liar... Pants on Fire....


Not much of a contribution to the discussion ... but certainly more coherent than usual.

Thanks VD for pointing out the massive 1895 - 1921 warming that took place without CO2.

You have helped point out that natural warming was huge and the same mechanisms caused the much smaller recent warming is some sates.

As I've said, many US states never got warmer than the 1921 or 1930s peaks.

An animated gif:

https://sunshineh...ling.gif
djr
3 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2012
Thanks VD for pointing out the massive 1895 - 1921 warming that took place without CO2.

Please look at this long term data set http://www.woodfo.../to:2012 Substitute in any of the other global data sets such as GIS if you want.

Now how is it not totally delusional to suggest there was massive warming from 1895 - 1921 - and that more recent warming was much smaller??? Don't show me data for Alabama - or for your living room - show me a global data set.....
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2012

Now how is it not totally delusional to suggest there was massive warming from 1895 - 1921


The thing about GAT indexes is that they pretend to be about global temperatures but regions warm and cool at different times.

So, for HADCRUT3, the big warming was 1909 to 1942/44.

http://www.woodfo...43/trend

1909 -0.565
1944 0.121

.686C

1978 -0.065
1998 0.548

.613C

NotParker
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2012
Don't show me data for Alabama - or for your living room


A challenge for you. Did bright sunshine increase at any time in the 20th century as it did in the UK.

http://sunshineho...us-tmax/

You do understand more bright sunshine = more warming.
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2012
Don't show me data for Alabama - or for your living room


USA as a whole?

1895 to 1921 = 3.32F

Or

1917 to 1934 = 4.01F

http://www.ncdc.n.../na.html
djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2012
Now - when you looked at the graph on the link that you provided - did you notice the green line? That would indicate a 100 yr warming trend - total warming around .75 degrees C. It is very interesting to me that you selected January - rather than the annual mean (again a subset of data vs the complete data set - or should we say cherry picking). http://climvis.nc...play3.pl The annual data shows a more pronounced warming trend - closer to a full degree C.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2012
ParkerTard does nothing but engage in dishonest cherry picking.

Here is the full data set for the full year, not cherry picked months over cherry picked intervals selected to support his employers.

NOAA - Climate At A Glance
Annual Temperature
Entire Contiguous United States

Annual full year 1895 - 2011 Trend = 0.12 degF / Decade

https://docs.goog...CREYtdFE
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 09, 2012
Don't show me data for Alabama - or for your living room


USA as a whole?

1895 to 1921 = 3.32F

Or

1917 to 1934 = 4.01F

http://www.ncdc.n.../na.html


Anyone can check. The warming of the USA was HUGE in the past, before CO2.

Even the biggest AGW liars on the planet admit CO2 had no effect before 1950.

Yet the warming before 1950 dwarfs the miniscule warming recently.

NotParker
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 09, 2012
Don't show me data for Alabama - or for your living room


A challenge for you. Did bright sunshine increase at any time in the 20th century as it did in the UK.

http://sunshineho...us-tmax/

You do understand more bright sunshine = more warming.


Anyone? Can you prove bright sunshine hasn't changed?
Vendicar_Decarian
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2012
ParkerTard's latest lie is easy to expose, and was exposed in the following talk given by Richard Alley...

http://www.agu.or...3A.shtml

It is very accessible and worth watching, and exposes ParkerTard's lates lie quite well.

And if you've ever wanted to see an audience of scientists laughing at a denialist's stupid accusations then this is the video for you.

"Even the biggest AGW liars on the planet admit CO2 had no effect before 1950." - ParkerTard

You are mentally diseased ParkerTard. Get psychiatric help before you hurt someone.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2012
Can you prove that Elvis is dead?

"Can you prove bright sunshine hasn't changed?" - ParkerTard

Outside of the mathematical sciences, science never offers proof.

ParkerTard has now demonstrated his complete ignorance of how science works.

Ignorance is the root of all denialism.
ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2012
This article just serves to show the bias of the AGW community. Globally, the winter of 2011/2012 has been relatively cool, yet they aren't reporting this. Why?

Globally, this is the 15th warmest winter on record (that actually means, it's cooler).
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2012

"Can you prove bright sunshine hasn't changed?" - ParkerTard

Outside of the mathematical sciences, science never offers proof.

ParkerTard has now demonstrated his complete ignorance of how science works.

Ignorance is the root of all denialism.


Actually, the dumber you are, the more you believe in AGW. You are so dumb you think the sun has nothing to do with warming.
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 09, 2012
It's been so cool globally, that the HadCRUT3 data now shows no global warming since 1997!

http://www.woodfo...97/trend

Of course VD will refer to the HadCRUT4 data without bothering to explain that it isn't updated (ends in December 2010).

gregor1
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 09, 2012
Anthony Watts puts this article in context
http://wattsupwit...ll-that/
Vendicar_Decarian
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2012
Anthony Watts is a nobody who runs a denialist blog.

"Anthony Watts puts this article in context" - GregorTard

Based on the Koch funding, of the BEST paleoclimate analysis project Watts, claimed he would support the findings irrespective of the results.

When the results of the Analysis did not agree with the idological position of the Koch brothers, Watts attacked the analysis as faulty and as a fraud.

There is no such thing as a honest denialist.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2012
Hadcrut4 shows a warming trend of .1'C over the last 15 years.

http://www.woodfo...11/trend

HadCrut3 shows a similar amount of warming since 1997

http://www.woodfo...11/trend

"It's been so cool globally, that the HadCRUT3 data now shows no global warming since 1997!" - UbVonTard

UbVonTard is a sock puppet of ParkerTard. It employs the same dishonest cherry picking, produces the same lies, and often posts just before or just after ParkerTard, because Tard boy logs out as himself and logs in as UbVonTard.

He probably makes an extra few cents per post that way.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2012
If ParkerTard had demonstrated a capacity to understand basic grade 5 science or beyond, he would be much more convincing.

"Actually, the dumber you are, the more you believe in AGW." - ParkerTard
SatanLover
1.1 / 5 (28) Jun 09, 2012
confusing weather with climate again.. cherry picking 1997 with todays weather again... sheesh..
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2012
temp(n) = a*temp(n-1) plus k*n plus c*rnd(0)

"Globally, this is the 15th warmest winter on record (that actually means, it's cooler)." - UbVonTard

http://www.woodfo...97/trend
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2012
Actually, the dumber you are, the more you believe in AGW.


"A US government-funded survey has found that Americans with higher levels of scientific and mathematical knowledge are more sceptical regarding the dangers of climate change than their more poorly educated fellow citizens."

NotParker
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 09, 2012
Hadcrut4 shows a warming trend of .1'C over the last 15 years.


2011 was cold. HADCRUT4 has no data from 2011. Only people who log in and prove they have an IQ above 100 get access. They laughed at VD's application written in crayon.

gregor1
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 10, 2012
Anthony Watts is a nobody who runs a denialist blog.

Ad hominum attack and name calling. What are you hiding? Anthony Watts runs the leading climate blog on the web with over !00,000,000 hits. He's far more influential than The Journals "Nature" and "Science" put together. Ignore him at your peril.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2012
Some people say that global warming made each of the following events worse. How much do you agree or disagree?

Hurricane Irene 59 percent agree or strongly agree.

The drought in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 69 percent agree or strongly agree

Mississippi River floods in the spring of 2011 63 percent agree or strongly agree

Record high summer temperatures in the U.S. in 2011: 71 percent agree or strongly agree

Record snowfall in the U.S. in 2010 and 2011: 61 percent agree or strongly agree

The unusually warm winter across the U.S. in Dec. 2011 and Jan. 2012: 72 percent agree or strongly agree

How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
Global warming is affecting the weather in the United States.: 69 percent agree to strongly agree.

Extreme Weather, Climate & Preparedness In the American Mind

http://environmen...ness.pdf
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2012
ParkerTard's latest lie is easy to expose.

The study in question -

"The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks"

http://www.nature...ormation

Refers to polarization rather than skepticism. Polarization in this context refers to a difference in view, while skepticism is an absolute measure of opinion.

ParkerTard has knowingly conflated standard deviation with mean.

Here is an example of his deceit
(0,0) Mean 0, Delta 0
(-1,1) Mean 0, Delta 2
(0,2) Mean 1, Delta 2
(0,4) Mean 2, Delta 4 (-

If Mean is acceptance and Delta is polarization then polarization has increased while acceptance has also increased.

"A US government-funded survey has found that Americans with higher levels of scientific and mathematical knowledge are more sceptical regarding the dangers of climate change than their more poorly educated fellow citizens." - ParkerTard

Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2012
Parker Tard tried another dishonest switcharoo yesterday when he knowingly conflated precision with accuracy in his attempt to claim that thermometers were less precise than they are.

In that instance ParkerTard was trying to prove his political claim that the standard error of n samples is not error/sqrt(n).

Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2012
"Ad hominum attack and name calling. What are you hiding?" - I don't trust liars. Hence I don't trust Antony Watts.

"Anthony Watts runs the leading climate blog on the web with over !00,000,000 hits." - He is a nobody. A former TV weather man who is on the payroll of the Carbon industry.

Im prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. - Antony Watts

Well, BEST has proved Antony Watts wrong, and he has reneged on his promise above.

He is a well known liar.

http://www.desmog...episodes
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2012
How does Heartland funding Anthony Watts

"We (Heartland) have also pledged to help raise around $90,000 in 2012 for Anthony Watts..." - Heartland Institute document.

http://www.youtub...VwEfq4bM
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2012
Corrrection: Anthony Watts was not a TV weatherman. He didn't rise to that level of prestige. He worked for a Radio station.

Watts quack blog is little more than an online circle jerk for Climate Denaialists.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (8) Jun 10, 2012
Hadcrut4 shows a warming trend of .1'C over the last 15 years.

http://www.woodfo...11/trend

"It's been so cool globally, that the HadCRUT3 data now shows no global warming since 1997!" - UbVonTard

http://www.woodfo...11/trend

UbVonTard is a sock puppet of ParkerTard. It employs the same dishonest cherry picking, produces the same lies, and often posts just before or just after ParkerTard, because Tard boy logs out as himself and logs in as UbVonTard.

He probably makes an extra few cents per post that way.
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 10, 2012
Hadcrut4 shows a warming trend of .1'C over the last 15 years.


No data for the cold 2011. If you weren't one of the ignorant uninformed AGW believers you would understand that.
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 10, 2012
Over the last 20 years, springtime temperatures in Washington State have fallen more than three degrees.

And is cooling at -1.66F per decade.

http://stevengodd...century/

So much for CO2 ...
SatanLover
1 / 5 (26) Jun 10, 2012
I suggest we just all report notparkers posts and hope he one day gets banned.
Lurker2358
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2012

24 out of the 48 continental states had the warmest consecutive 12 months before 1950.

Thats half.

17 of the 48 had the warmest consecutive 12 months in 2011/2012.


that's not a fair comparison, idjit.

You're comparing all the individual record 12 months periods for individual states across a 60 year period to that of a 1 year period.

Can't you see that 17 states having their 12 hottest consecutive months in a single year is a much bigger deal than 24 states having their 12 hottest consecutive months across 60 years?

1 record per 3 years average vs 17 records in one year...

wow. When properly digested, your own data refutes you.

Besides that, 31 states just had their hottest march-april-may ever, and additional 5 states had their second hottest march-to-may period ever, and another 4 had their third hottest ever.

All told, 40 states were in their top 3 hottest such period ever for 2012, and 46 states were above normal, with 43 being "much above normal".

Grow up, fool.
JRi
5 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2012
Good for them! Here in Scandinavia the spring has been very cold. For example, a week ago in Stockholm, it was colder than it was in December.
NotParker
1 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2012

24 out of the 48 continental states had the warmest consecutive 12 months before 1950.

Thats half.

17 of the 48 had the warmest consecutive 12 months in 2011/2012.


that's not a fair comparison, idjit.

You're comparing all the individual record 12 months periods for individual states across a 60 year period to that of a 1 year period.


21 were 1931/1932 or 1933/1934.

That beats your 17.

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2012
Am doing so.

"I suggest we just all report notparkers posts" - stan
Vendicar_Decarian
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2012
ParkerTard's latest lie is easy to expose.

Here is the temperature history for Washington State (spring) since 1900.

https://docs.goog...UUTg4OXc

Average temperatures for that region in the 90's was around 9.5'C
Average temperatures for the last 10 years are around 8.5'C

The difference is 1C'.

ParkerTard gets his 3'C drop by dishonestly taking the highest temperature in the 90's 11'C and subtracting the current temperature 8'C and ignoring all of the data in between.

"Over the last 20 years, springtime temperatures in Washington State have fallen more than three degrees." - ParkerTard

And even so, he is so desperate that to try to deceive he has to resort to looking at a cherry picked time period for a cherry picked state, and a cherry picked time interval to find cooling in a state that represents only 0.12 percent of the earths surface area.

ParkerTard is a congenital liar, and is mentally diseased.
NotParker
1 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2012
ParkerTard's latest lie is easy to expose.

Here is the temperature history for Washington State (spring) since 1900.

https://docs.goog...UUTg4OXc

Average temperatures for that region in the 90's was around 9.5'C
Average temperatures for the last 10 years are around 8.5'C

The difference is 1C'.


Huge.

But I was use F. And the numbers were accurate. 1934 was a lot warmer than 2011.
NotParker
1 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2012
Am doing so.

"I suggest we just all report notparkers posts" - stan


When you lose every argument I guess trying to ban someone smarter than you makes sense if you have no interest in learning anything ... ever.
NotParker
1 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2012
May is getting cold.

Arizona May is cooling at -4.2F/decade from 2000 to 2012
California May is cooling at -3.41F/decade from 2001 to 2012
Colorado May is cooling at -2.58F/decade from 2000 to 2012
Idaho May is cooling at -3.53F/decade from 2001 to 2012
Minnesota May is cooling at -1.26F/decade from 1985 to 2012
Montana May is cooling at -2.46F/decade from 2000 to 2012
Nebraska May is cooling at -1.09F/decade from 1998 to 2012
Nevada May is cooling at -4.51F/decade from 2001 to 2012
New Mexico May is cooling at -3.07F/decade from 2000 to 2012
North Dakota May is cooling at -2.12F/decade from 1985 to 2012
Oregon May is cooling at -3.57F/decade from 2001 to 2012
South Dakota May is cooling at -1.44F/decade from 1985 to 2012
Texas May is cooling at -1.16F/decade from 1998 to 2012
Utah May is cooling at -4.18F/decade from 2000 to 2012
Washington May is cooling at -2.38F/decade from 2001 to 2012
Wyoming May is cooling at -3.07F/decade from 2000 to 2012
NotParker
1 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2012
June (just the ones more than -.5F/dec):

Arizona -2.58F/dec. from 2001 to 2011
California -2.69F/dec. from 2000 to 2011
Colorado -1.15F/dec. from 2001 to 2011
Connecticut -0.64F/dec. from 1999 to 2011
Idaho -3.1F/dec. from 2001 to 2011
Iowa -0.71F/dec. from 1986 to 2011
Maine -1.05F/dec. from 1999 to 2011
Massachusetts -0.93F/dec. from 1999 to 2011
Michigan -0.67F/dec. from 1994 to 2011
Minnesota -1.73F/dec. from 2001 to 2011
Montana -1.96F/dec. from 1986 to 2011
Nebraska -1.24F/dec. from 2001 to 2011
Nevada -3.97F/dec. from 2001 to 2011
New Hampshire -1.4F/dec. from 1999 to 2011
North Dakota -1.83F/dec. from 1986 to 2011
Oregon -2.76F/dec. from 2001 to 2011
South Dakota -2.08F/dec. from 2001 to 2011
Utah -2.95F/dec. from 2001 to 2011
Vermont -0.68F/dec. from 1994 to 2011
Washington -2.22F/dec. from 2001 to 2011
Wisconsin -0.8F/dec. from 1994 to 2011
Wyoming -2.21F/dec. from 2001 to 2011
NotParker
1 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2012
States with the warmest May before 1900

Georgia 76.2 1896
Idaho 58.2 1897
Indiana 68.4 1896
Kentucky 71.5 1896
Michigan 62.4 1896
Mississippi 77 1896
North Carolina 72.3 1896
Oklahoma 75 1896
South Carolina 76.5 1896
West Virginia 67.3 1896

NotParker
1 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2012
States with the warmest May after 1900 and before 1950

Alabama 76.1 1933
Colorado 59.5 1934
Florida 78.6 1905
Iowa 68.8 1934
Louisiana 77.3 1933
Maine 57.6 1911
Massachusetts 61.4 1944
Montana 59.6 1934
Nebraska 68.5 1934
New Hampshire 59.7 1911
New York 61.6 1911
Pennsylvania 64.8 1944
South Dakota 68.3 1934
Utah 61.8 1934
Wyoming 57.5 1934

NotParker
1 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2012
States with the warmest May this century

Arizona 72.1 2000
California 69.6 2001
Delaware 69.2 2004
Maryland 69 2004
Nevada 62.1 2001
Rhode Island 61.8 2010
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2012
If you believe that a 1'C drop in a cherry picked 3 month period over several decades for an area that is 0.12 percent the surface are of the earth is huge, then the 0.74'C temperature rise over an area that is 800 times larger must be gargantuan on your scale.

Yet you dishonestly claim otherwise.

"Huge." - Parkertard
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2012
No you didn't.

"But I was use F" - ParkerTard

Poor ParkerTard, lies about everything...

"Over the last 20 years, springtime temperatures in Washington State have fallen more than three degrees." - ParkerTard

No "F" there.

Yet another ParkerTard Lie.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2012
Brain Diseased ParkerTard now resorts to spamming the system with irrelevant cherry picked statistics from minute fractions of the globe.

"States with the warmest May this century" - ParkerTard

ParkerTard is mentally diseased. He needs to get psychiatric help.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2012
Brain Diseased ParkerTard now resorts to spamming the system with irrelevant cherry picked statistics from minute fractions of the globe.

"States with the warmest May after 1900 and before 1950" - ParkerTard

ParkerTard is mentally diseased. He needs to get psychiatric help.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2012
More pointless spam from ParkerTard.

"States with the warmest May before 1900" - ParkerTard

He is mentally diseased. He needs to get psychiatric help.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2012
More pointless spam from ParkerTard.

"May is getting cold." - ParkerTard

He is mentally diseased. He needs to get psychiatric help.
NotParker
1 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2012
States with the warmest May before 1900

Georgia 76.2 1896
Idaho 58.2 1897
Indiana 68.4 1896
Kentucky 71.5 1896
Michigan 62.4 1896
Mississippi 77 1896
North Carolina 72.3 1896
Oklahoma 75 1896
South Carolina 76.5 1896
West Virginia 67.3 1896



I wonder why CO2 skipped warming May? And June too.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2012
ParkerTard's perpetual spamming of this system along with his constant lying makes him an enemy of science.

"When you lose every argument I guess trying to ban someone smarter than you makes sense" - ParkerTard

He is mentally diseased and needs to get immediate psychiatric help.
NotParker
1 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2012
CO2 pretends June isn't there.

Alabama 82.9 1914
Arizona 83.1 1896
California 76.6 1896
Connecticut 70.2 1925
Idaho 65 1918
Illinois 78.5 1934
Indiana 76.8 1934
Iowa 77 1933
Maine 66.1 1930
Maryland 75.9 1943
Massachusetts 69.4 1930
Michigan 70.8 1919
Minnesota 72 1933
Mississippi 83 1914
Nebraska 76.9 1933
Nevada 70.5 1918
New York 69.5 1949
Ohio 75.5 1934
Oregon 64.9 1918
Pennsylvania 72.2 1943
South Dakota 75.7 1933
Vermont 68 1949
WestVirginia 74.3 1943
Wisconsin 72 1933
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2012
NASA GISS temperatures are not yet available for May or June.

"I wonder why CO2 skipped warming May? And June too." - ParkerTard

June is only 10 days old and ParkerTard claims it is cooling.

Liar, Liar, Pants on fire.
NotParker
1 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2012
CO2 pretends June isn't there for all but these:


Colorado 67.3 2002
Delaware 77.4 2010
Louisiana 83.9 2011
New Jersey 74.4 2010
Rhode Island 69.6 2010
Texas 85 2011
Utah 70.2 2007
Virginia 76.3 2010
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2012
More pointless spam from ParkerTard.

"CO2 pretends June isn't there." - ParkerTard

He is mentally diseased and needs to get immediate psychiatric help.
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2012
NASA GISS temperatures are not yet available for May or June.


You like datasets missing data. As for June, the data is up to 2011. Obviously!

Try and stay with the program.
SatanLover
1 / 5 (27) Jun 10, 2012
notparker or the 200 idiots behind the nickname.
Get this through your thick skull. Cherry picking doesnt work.
djr
4 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2012
"When you lose every argument" Of course Vendi loses every argument with you - have you ever tried arguing with a young earth creationist? It don't work. Of course there were no dinosaurs - god put the bones in the rocks to f**k with our heads. Of course the globe is cooling - it was cooler on May 15th 2010 in Podunk Oklahoma. You can't win an argument with an idealogue - they will never give in.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2012
NASA GISSTEMP (GLobal) 2012

Jan 34
Feb 39
March 46
April 56
May NA
June NA

"You like datasets missing data" - ParerTard

As I said, the data for May has not yet been analyzed and June hasn't ended yet.

How Parkertard claims that June is cooler is comprehensible only to him.

Probably without his foil cap, he done gone and gotsemself foncused.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2012
ParkerTard thinks that if he tells enough lies then he wins.

"You can't win an argument with an idealogue - they will never give in." - dir

How typically Conservative of him.

Cave_Man
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2012
Jesus Christ it's a full time job trying to 1 star all of NotParker's posts. I gave up after like the 1000th idiotic one.

Better to just smoke a joint and pretend he's a naked lady.
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2012
States with the warmest May this century

Arizona 72.1 2000
California 69.6 2001
Delaware 69.2 2004
Maryland 69 2004
Nevada 62.1 2001
Rhode Island 61.8 2010


Why did CO2 forsake the month of May?

NotParker
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2012
NASA GISSTEMP (GLobal) 2012

Jan 34
Feb 39
March 46
April 56
May NA
June NA

"You like datasets missing data" - ParerTard

As I said, the data for May has not yet been analyzed


NOAA/NASA disagrees.

"Alaska had its 22nd coolest May since records began in 1918, with a temperature 2.2°F (1.2°C) below the 19712000 average."

djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2012
"Alaska had its 22nd coolest May since records began in 1918, with a temperature 2.2F (1.2C) below the 19712000 average." Wow - that changes everything - If I had known that Alaska had a very cold May (the 22nd coolest no less) I would not have even bothered to look at long term global temperature data - I mean a cold May in Alaska is like having the Ace of Spades - no long term temperature data set could trump a cold May in Alaska..... No wonder you win all of your arguments - you have the Ace of Spades Parker.....
MandoZink
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2012
Things I've always wondered about the global warming conspiracy:

1. When was the conspiracy conceived?
2. When and where did they hold meetings to plot this?
3. Who were the organizers?
4. What made them decide they could successfully corrupt a global collection of professionals to abandon all integrity?
5. How did they manage to contact 97% of the planets climate researchers and leave no evidence?
6. What the hell did they offer all these people to abandon their dignity?
7. What the hell did they threaten them with to guarantee they would comply and not expose the contact, the offer, or the threat?
8. How do they manage to coordinate all of the world's researchers now under their control?
9. How did the other 3% of researchers manage to ALL get hired by oil companies and conservative think-tanks?
10. Since this was so very stealthily done, RIGHT UNDER OUR NOSES, what can we do to prevent this from happening to all other research fields?

This is simply unimaginable!
gregor1
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2012
Mando Zink Start herehttp://www.quadra...nt-s-egg

"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
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2012
Spam

"Why did CO2 forsake the month of May?" - ParkerTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3.8 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2012
Spam

"NOAA/NASA disagrees." - Parkertard

"Alaska had its 22nd coolest May" - ParkerTard

Pointless drivel from ParkerTard.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2012
GregorTard has told a lie by using a doctored quote from Dr. Schneider.

"We need to get some broad based support," - Gregor1

This is at least the third time he has told the same lie.

Here is the full quote. Cont:

Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2012
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. CONT...
Vendicar_Decarian
3.1 / 5 (7) Jun 11, 2012
To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." - Dr. Stephen Schneider
Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2012
Are you going to continue to tell the same lie over and over and over again GregorTard, after you have been exposed and corrected for the third time?

I have never encountered a Conservative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.

Congenital liars, GregorTard, ParkerTard, and RyggTard are perfect examples of Conservative deceit.
gregor1
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 11, 2012
Mondo. I think you may have been watching too many Hollywood movies. I'm not going to call you a liar as I think you actually believe the 97% of climate scientists meme so I think you have to go back to some basic issues of this debate. If you are really interested and not just another troll please read thishttp://www.forbes...-debate/ which sums things up pretty well
gregor1
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 11, 2012
VD How does that make my quote any less odious. He's basically advocating that the media be utilized to spread untruths regarding climate issues rather than facts. This basically sums up how this issue became a runaway train. I'm thinking it's time we put the breaks on.
gregor1
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 11, 2012
I'm a little confused.... I quote a leading Climate Scientist advocating lying and that makes me a liar. Help me out here VD?
whostoleescher7
3 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2012
What amazes me with this subject, whether on nutty CNN posts or here, is the willingness of doubters and skeptics to just shrug it off. I am not certain why they fight the notion so hard. Reducing greenhouse gases is a good thing even if the scientists are wrong whereas if they are right doing nothing could be catastrophic.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2012
You posted a doctored quote with portions edited away.

"I quote a leading Climate Scientist advocating lying and that makes me a liar." - GregorTard

That makes you a lying piece of filth.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (8) Jun 11, 2012
Liar.

"He's basically advocating that the media be utilized to spread untruths regarding climate issues rather than facts." - GregorTard

A portion of the quote that GregorTard dishonestly removed.

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change." - Dr. Stephen Schneider
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2012
You posted a doctored quote with portions edited away.

"I quote a leading Climate Scientist advocating lying and that makes me a liar." - Gregor1

That makes you a lying piece of filth.
It looks to me like he included the relevant portion. The portion you added was a preamble describing correct behavior, which the subsequent part gregor1 quoted essentially dismisses.

There's a hopeful expression in the conclusion stating a desire to be both honest and exaggerate (lie) simultaneously, but this is obviously not possible.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2012
What amazes me with this subject, whether on nutty CNN posts or here, is the willingness of doubters and skeptics to just shrug it off. I am not certain why they fight the notion so hard. Reducing greenhouse gases is a good thing even if the scientists are wrong whereas if they are right doing nothing could be catastrophic.
This isn't necessarily true. Reducing greenhouse gasses might cause more problems than it solves. It's hard to grow corn on an icesheet.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 11, 2012
Things I've always wondered about the global warming conspiracy:

1. When was the conspiracy conceived?
In spite of certain e-mails and other evidence, I wouldn't call it a broad-based "conspiracy" so much as a system generated error. That is, the system is set up to reward those siding with AGW, and punish those who aren't.
Origin
1 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2012
I wouldn't call it a broad-based "conspiracy" so much as a system generated error.
This is correct insight. This is similar mechanism, like the refusal of dense aether model or tired light cosmology or cold fusion with mainstream physics. The phenomena which are mediated mostly with longitudinal waves of energy tend to be ignored with mainstream physics, which is centered to deterministic, i.e. transverse wave model approach. There is no organized conspiracy, but widespread distrust and various incentives, which do support the deterministic models (which are opened to description with formal math) into account of holistic fuzzy logics. The schematically thinking people simply cannot imagine these phenomena working and because they have no math developed for it, they tend to ignore it systematically. Because the contemporary system of physics is rewarding only those, who can publish formal description.
Origin
1 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2012
Regarding the AGW hypothesis, I tend to support rather astrophysical origin of global warming (dark matter heating the Earth crust with accelerated decay of radioactive elements in marine water). IMO the sudden waves of droughts (Texas) or hot weather (spring in the USA) do support the global warming theory, but their sudden character doesn't support the AGW hypothesis more, than any other wave of cold weather (Stockholm this year). The Anthropogenic Global Warming is supposed to have a gradualist effect and the sudden climate changes could therefore have quite different origin, which is independent to human activity.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2012
A case in point is this very article.

This article serves to show the bias of the AGW community. Globally, the winter of 2011/2012 has been relatively cool, yet they aren't reporting this. Why?

Globally, this is the 15th "warmest" Winter/Spring period (January through April) on record (that actually means, it's cooler). And it's the 21st "warmest" Winter period (January through March). And the 24th "warmest" deep winter (January and February) Why aren't they reporting this?

So in spite of the unusually warm North American Winter, the world was actually relatively cool! Why are they trying to scare people with misleading headlines?
Origin
1 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2012
If you consider my hypothesis nonsensical, then I can assure you, that the mainstream physicists can go way further (1, 2, 3). Note that these physicists are using the global warming concept in the exactly the same context, like I do. I.e. the passing of dense cloud of dark matter through some area of Universe.
gregor1
1 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2012
That's simple ubavonatuba. Dr. Stephen Schneider set this up years ago. Disinformation
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2012
Gregor - I read your Forbes article carefully. An article you posted clearly articulates that there is a scientific consensus on a number of fundamental points. The globe is warming (.7 C in past 100 yrs), C02 emissions are a contributory factor, this climate change has potentially catastrophic consequences. Surely any reasonable person would then conclude that we should be paying close attention to this issue? Do you agree? Do you understand the frustration of seeing every single article reported by Physorg that mentions climate change, or alternative energy etc. immediately attacked by people such as Parker - claiming there is a global conspiracy, there is no warming, the scientists are manipulating the data etc. etc. I think most of us are concerned about the issue - and want to let the science take it's course. If the science is wrong - and the climate stabilizes - we will be happy - but do you understand the problem I am addressing?
NotParker
1 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2012
"NOAA/NASA disagrees."

"Alaska had its 22nd coolest May"


Alaska had its 23rd coolest March-May since records began in 1918, with a temperature 2.7 F (1.5C) below the 19712000 average.

1.5C colder!!!!

Temperatures in the Northwest and along the coast this month were 2-4 F (1-2 C) below normal, similar to but less cool than May 2010 and 2011. Average May temperatures do not show recent warming or cooling in the Northwest, though the past two years were anomalously cool.

Exactly what I said!
NotParker
1 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2012
Gregor - I read your Forbes article carefully. An article you posted clearly articulates that there is a scientific consensus on a number of fundamental points. The globe is warming (.7 C in past 100 yrs), C02 emissions are a contributory factor,


Even the most fanatical AGW web site like Skeptical Science agrees CO2 had nothing to do with warming before 1940 (and most sane people say 1950)

Therefore attributing pre-1950 warming to Co2 is part of an elaborate con-game.

djr
5 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2012
"Therefore attributing pre-1950 warming to Co2 is part of an elaborate con-game." Parker changing the subject again. But since you bring it up - who are you accusing of blaming pre 1950 warming on C02? Could you show me where Skeptical Science claims that "C02 had nothing to do with warming before 1940"?

C02 levels were clearly rising in the early part of the 20th century http://planetforl...000.html - so tagging on to the consensus that Gregor shared with us about the globe being in a warming trend, and C02 being at least a contributory factor to that warming - it would make sense to me that C02 was at least in part responsible for the pre 1940 warming. What data or research do have that shows otherwise?
NotParker
1 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2012
"Therefore attributing pre-1950 warming to Co2 is part of an elaborate con-game." Parker changing the subject again. But since you bring it up - who are you accusing of blaming pre 1950 warming on C02? Could you show me where Skeptical Science claims that "C02 had nothing to do with warming before 1940"?


"The climate at any one time is affected by several factors which can act independently or together. The main factors include solar variability, volcanic activity, atmospheric composition, the amount of sunlight reflected back into space, ocean currents and changes in the Earth's orbit.

Before 1940, the increase in temperature is believed to have been caused mainly by two factors:

Increasing solar activity; and

Low volcanic activity (as eruptions can have a cooling effect by blocking out the sun"

http://www.skepti...tury.htm
NotParker
1 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2012

C02 levels were clearly rising in the early part of the 20th century


Go ahead. Elaborate.
NotParker
1 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2012

Before 1940, the increase in temperature is believed to have been caused mainly by two factors:

Increasing solar activity; and

Low volcanic activity (as eruptions can have a cooling effect by blocking out the sun"

http://www.skepti...tury.htm


And bright sunshine does change over time. Up and down and up again.

http://sunshineho...unshine/
NotParker
1 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2012

C02 levels were clearly rising in the early part of the 20th century


Go ahead. Elaborate.


http://drtimball....rrupted/
djr
5 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2012
C02 levels were clearly rising in the early part of the 20th century

Go ahead. Elaborate.

Can you not read a graph? Look at the graph on the link you provided. Here is another one that is a little more clear.

Early 20th century - let's say 1900 to 1920. Do you notice the line slopes upwards? That indicates an increase.

On to the Skeptic article - I implied that C02 was a contributing factor. Skeptic says "Before 1940, the increase in temperature is believed to have been caused mainly by two factors:" Do you see the word 'mainly'? You can't read!!!! Mainly means they are not the only 2 factors - so consistent with what I posted - C02 was a contributory factor.....
NotParker
1 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2012

Can you not read a graph? Look at the graph on the link you provided. Here is another one that is a little more clear.

Early 20th century - let's say 1900 to 1920. Do you notice the line slopes upwards? That indicates an increase.

On to the Skeptic article - I implied that C02 was a contributing factor. Skeptic says "Before 1940, the increase in temperature is believed to have been caused mainly by two factors:" Do you see the word 'mainly'? You can't read!!!! Mainly means they are not the only 2 factors - so consistent with what I posted - C02 was a contributory factor.....


1) Do you have any numbers and the source. May source says numbers were higher in the 1700s. I posted it.

2) Say your graph suggests a 1% increase by 1910 ... and 2% by 1920. and say 5^ by 1940. Hard to tell.

Are you suggesting a miniscule increase in Co2 caused a .7C increase in temperatures ... and then cause a drop in temperatures from 1945 to 1979 etc?
NotParker
1 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2012
Did your CO2 graph come from ice cores like GISP2?

http://jonova.s3....-new.png
djr
5 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2012
Final comment - except maybe to emphasize that I am trying to reason with a fool - stupid me. Consistent with what I have posted - and the links I provided - and the link you provided - C02 levels were rising in the early part of the 20th Century - and it is considered that they were a contributory factor in the warming trend of that time period.
NotParker
1 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2012
Skeptic says "Before 1940, the increase in temperature is believed to have been caused mainly by two factors:" Do you see the word 'mainly'?


Do you agree I was telling the truth about Skeptical Science ... and I remind you they are fanatics.

Even the fanatics left out CO2 from the plausible cause list of pre-1940 warming.

Sane AGW scientists put it at 1950.

NotParker
1 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2012
Final comment - except maybe to emphasize that I am trying to reason with a fool - stupid me. Consistent with what I have posted - and the links I provided - and the link you provided - C02 levels were rising in the early part of the 20th Century - and it is considered that they were a contributory factor in the warming trend of that time period.


1) My link shows pre-1950 CO2 levels were fabricated by dropping all measurements showing high values

2) A miniscule change in CO2 did not cause the 1909 to 1943 warming.

3) If CO2 caused the 1909/43 warming, it also caused the post-44 cooling and post-1998 cooling. Which you will never admit to.

Arguing with AGW cult members is always a waste of time. When they try facts, they lose. So they always go back to name calling.

djr
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2012
Do you agree I was telling the truth about Skeptical Science ...
I said last comment. Anyway - no I don't agree - serious question - do you not speak English? You see - the word 'mainly' - means that this is not the only influence - which leaves the door open for the possibility of C02 being a contributing influence - so no - I don't agree. Final comment....
djr
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2012
Do you agree I was telling the truth about Skeptical Science ...
I said last comment. Anyway - no I don't agree - serious question - do you not speak English? You see - the word 'mainly' - means that this is not the only influence - which leaves the door open for the possibility of C02 being a contributing influence - so no - I don't agree. Final comment....
NotParker
1 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2012
You see - the word 'mainly' - means that this is not the only influence - which leaves the door open for the possibility of C02 being a contributing influence - so no - I don't agree. Final comment....


Ok. If CO2 started rising in 1850, which of the following two slopes were caused by Co2?

http://www.woodfo.../to:1943
gregor1
1 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2012
Surely any reasonable person would then conclude that we should be paying close attention to this issue? Do you agree?

Yes I agree and that's why I'm interested.As soon as you get the UN involved you have an international conspiracy I'm afraid and if you read the Quadrant art. I posted you'll see the genesis of that . My frustration is with the endless media exaggeration and the hysterical claims of some scientists whose "facts" are easily checked with google. Parker fights cherry picking with cherry picking which is valid as he sights his sources. VD and his ilk uses abuse and ad hominem to polarize and obscure, which doesn't help. We are only going discover the truth if we cut through the BS I'm afraid.
djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2012
"Parker fights cherry picking with cherry picking which is valid as he sights his sources".

It is never acceptable to cherry pick data. Having read your response to my inquiry - I now understand that you and Parker simply want to engage in unwinnable conflict. You are not interested in truth. Sure some scientists exaggerate - to their own detriment - because if we exaggerate claims - and are wrong - we discredit ourselves. You totally ignore the central point that I made - certain fundamentals of global warming are understood - and it is pure malice to spend your life starting conflict on the internet over established science. I yield the floor to you and Parker et al - there is nothing to be gained from endless circular conflict - last comment....
NotParker
1 / 5 (3) Jun 12, 2012

It is never acceptable to cherry pick data.


How about cherry picking trend lines?

Like claiming the earth warmed by .8C from 1900 and blaming it all on Co2?

And then realizing your argument fails because even the most fanatical defender says CO2 had no import role in pre-1940 warming. Oh you can weasel around the word "mainly", but you never actually come up with a value for CO2's influence on pre-1940 warming and the post 1870 cooling etc.

You dishonestly try and blame CO2 for ALL the up parts since 1850 even thought at most CO2 rose 5% from 1850 to 1940.

And then you whine and run away.

The warming and cooling is cyclical natural processes.
rubberman
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 12, 2012
@DJR....
I told ya not to engage him. It's like a never ending game of whack a mole but no matter how hard or how many times you deliver that winning blow....there he is again. Best to just laugh at his gluttony for punishment and move on....Gregor, same thing...add 7 IQ points.
NotParker
1 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2012
@DJR....
I told ya not to engage him. It's like a never ending game of whack a mole but no matter how hard or how many times you deliver that winning blow....there he is again. Best to just laugh at his gluttony for punishment and move on....Gregor, same thing...add 7 IQ points.


Why do you run away from a fact filled argument? Afraid of losing for the millionth time?
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2012
You dishonestly try and blame CO2 for ALL the up parts since 1850 even thought at most CO2 rose 5% from 1850 to 1940.

And then you whine and run away.

You really are ignorant... I never blamed C02 for "All" the up warming. That is an ignorant lie. You are an ignorant liar. Go ahead - look back through all of my posts on this thread. I have consistently and repeatedly said that C02 was a contributing factor. I acknowledged Skeptics post that recognized the warming was "mainly" due to other factors. Do you now understand how ignorant you are? How futile it is to try to engage you with reason? You lie - twist the facts - frustrate people to the point of absurdity - and yes the only reasonable course upon recognizing the ignorant specious, malicious tactics you use is to disengage
NotParker
1 / 5 (4) Jun 13, 2012
You dishonestly try and blame CO2 for ALL the up parts since 1850 even thought at most CO2 rose 5% from 1850 to 1940.

And then you whine and run away.

You really are ignorant... I never blamed C02 for "All" the up warming. That is an ignorant lie. You are an ignorant liar. Go ahead - look back through all of my posts on this thread. I have consistently and repeatedly said that C02 was a contributing factor. I acknowledged Skeptics post that recognized the warming was "mainly" due to other factors. Do you now understand how ignorant you are? How futile it is to try to engage you with reason? You lie - twist the facts - frustrate people to the point of absurdity - and yes the only reasonable course upon recognizing the ignorant specious, malicious tactics you use is to disengage


What percentage of the .7C warming from 1909 to 1943 do you blame on Co2?

Which percentage of the .7C warming from 1979 to 1998 do you blame on Co2?

Why?

djr
4 / 5 (4) Jun 13, 2012
I have never claimed to be able to identify a specific percentage. I have said that C02 levels were rising in the early part of the 20th century - that C02 is understood to be a contributory factor in terms of global warming - and therefore it is reasonable that C02 played some role in the warming experienced - probably very minor - as the levels were rising very slightly. Why do you keep changing the subject? I suspect because you refuse to acknowledge what I demonstrated earlier - that you are a liar - and are not interested in truth - only in creating conflict and confusion. Your practice of spamming the internet for the clear purpose of causing conflict is reprehensible. You embody the term troll.
NotParker
1 / 5 (4) Jun 13, 2012
I have never claimed to be able to identify a specific percentage. I have said that C02 levels were rising in the early part of the 20th century - that C02 is understood to be a contributory factor in terms of global warming - and therefore it is reasonable that C02 played some role in the warming experienced - probably very minor - as the levels were rising very slightly.


I try and take the AGW theory seriously ... but it can never be pinned down.

You wish to argue that I am wrong from a position of ambiguity.

And I bring facts and you bring nothing.

You are the troll.
djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 13, 2012
You wish to argue that I am wrong from a position of ambiguity.

No - I argue that you are wrong for making accusations that are clearly false. You claim that I " blame CO2 for ALL the up parts". This is false - this is a lie. This exposes you as being not interested in truth - but interested in causing conflict. On any one given day - you can be seen starting conflict on one - often multiple articles. Here is an example - http://phys.org/n...ths.html I will repeat what I said earlier "Your practice of spamming the internet for the clear purpose of causing conflict is reprehensible. You embody the term troll."
NotParker
1 / 5 (4) Jun 13, 2012
You wish to argue that I am wrong from a position of ambiguity.

No - I argue that you are wrong for making accusations that are clearly false. You claim that I " blame CO2 for ALL the up parts". This is false - this is a lie. This exposes you as being not interested in truth - but interested in causing conflict. On any one given day - you can be seen starting conflict on one - often multiple articles. Here is an example - http://phys.org/n...ths.html I will repeat what I said earlier "Your practice of spamming the internet for the clear purpose of causing conflict is reprehensible. You embody the term troll."


You blamed most of the .7C warming since 1900 on CO2.

Now I ask a simple question: Which part of the 20th century warming and cooling were CO2 caused?

The pre-1940 warming? How much? 1%? 2%?

The post-1940 cooling? How much?

etc

But, no answers. You rant trying to distract.

You are a troll.
djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 13, 2012
You blamed most of the .7C warming since 1900 on CO2.

No I did not - you truly cannot read. I don't know which part of the warming was caused by C02 - I have consistently said that. I don't rant to distract - I rant to express my frustration that an idiot like yourself can take pleasure in trolling the internet - disregarding reality - lying - spreading disinformation - and never be willing to acknowledge that he/she is so dishonorable - that is I why I rant ParkerTroll.
NotParker
1 / 5 (4) Jun 13, 2012

No I did not - you truly cannot read. I don't know which part of the warming was caused by C02


But you said: "it would make sense to me that C02 was at least in part responsible for the pre 1940 warming"

So you don't know how much, but you are sure it is some, but you won't tell us how much.

How can anyone have a discussion with you if you don't even take a position on anything?

Troll.
djr
5 / 5 (4) Jun 14, 2012
So you don't know how much, but you are sure it is some, but you won't tell us how much.

That is totally correct - and consistent with my position all along - the logic is this (as previously explained but you can't get it) - C02 levels were going up in the early part of the century - it is understood that rising C02 levels are a contributory factor in global temperature increases - THEREFORE it is reasonable to conclude that C02 level increases were a contributory factor in said temperature increases. That is a consistent position - you can't have a discussion with me - because you are not smart enough to understand the logic of the position I have explained multiple times - but you live in your own delusional world - in which you win every argument you incite. I prefer not to incite arguments - but it is pretty logical to conclude that I am a lot smarter than you - and don't need to be a Parkertroll.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Jun 14, 2012
In part...

Krakatau, Indonesia
On August 27, 1883, the island volcano of Krakatau in present-day Indonesia exploded violently.

"Ok. If CO2 started rising in 1850, which of the following two slopes were caused by Co2?" - ParkerTard
NotParker
1 / 5 (5) Jun 14, 2012
So you don't know how much, but you are sure it is some, but you won't tell us how much.


I reality all warming in the 20th century was natural ups and downs with CO2 playing no discernible role.

The major driver may have been bright sunshine which did increase and drop and rise again in synch with the small ups and downs in temperature.

The fact that dir the Troll claims some unknown role for Co2 but won't even point to any references for pre-1950 warming is pathetic.
NotParker
1 / 5 (4) Jun 14, 2012
In part...

Krakatau, Indonesia
On August 27, 1883, the island volcano of Krakatau in present-day Indonesia exploded violently.



No reflected in the data. Temperatures were already dropping like a stone after the 1878 peak.

http://woodfortre.../to:1890

Plus, the largest eruption of the 20th century was Katmai-Novarupta eruption in Alaska in 1912.

And 1909 was when temperatures bottomed out and started going up again.

http://woodfortre.../to:1943

VD, that wasn't as pathetic an attempt as you usually make.

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Jun 14, 2012
Parker Tard's latest lie is easy to expose.

Just look at temperatures earlier than his cherry pick...

No reflected in the data. Temperatures were already dropping like a stone after the 1878 peak.

"No reflected in the data. Temperatures were already dropping like a stone after the 1878 peak." - ParkerTard

Lying to serve his financial masters is ParkerTards way of life.
He is mentally diseased and needs to get psychiatric help.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Jun 14, 2012
http://woodfortre.../to:1885

Look at that decline in temps caused by Krakatoa.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Jun 14, 2012
And the Earth's temperature rose despite that eruption.

"Plus, the largest eruption of the 20th century was Katmai-Novarupta eruption in Alaska in 1912." - ParkerTard

Poor ParkerTard. Now he has grown so mentally ill that he is arguing against his own lunatic position.

Get psychiatric help boy.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Jun 14, 2012
What a shame that no one of merit agrees with you since your assertion violates the fundamental tenants of radiative physics.

"I reality all warming in the 20th century was natural ups and downs with CO2 playing no discernible role." - ParkerTard

I believe you have the majority of the worlds circus clowns on your side though.

Poor mentlally diseased Parkertard.
NotParker
1 / 5 (2) Jun 14, 2012

Lying to serve his financial masters is ParkerTards way of life.
He is mentally diseased and needs to get psychiatric help.


I see you've returned to your dementia.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Jun 15, 2012
Lying to serve his financial masters is ParkerTards way of life.
He is mentally diseased and needs to get psychiatric help.

More news stories

China says massive area of its soil polluted

A huge area of China's soil covering more than twice the size of Spain is estimated to be polluted, the government said Thursday, announcing findings of a survey previously kept secret.

UN weather agency warns of 'El Nino' this year

The UN weather agency Tuesday warned there was a good chance of an "El Nino" climate phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean this year, bringing droughts and heavy rainfall to the rest of the world.

NASA's space station Robonaut finally getting legs

Robonaut, the first out-of-this-world humanoid, is finally getting its space legs. For three years, Robonaut has had to manage from the waist up. This new pair of legs means the experimental robot—now stuck ...

Ex-Apple chief plans mobile phone for India

Former Apple chief executive John Sculley, whose marketing skills helped bring the personal computer to desktops worldwide, says he plans to launch a mobile phone in India to exploit its still largely untapped ...

Filipino tests negative for Middle East virus

A Filipino nurse who tested positive for the Middle East virus has been found free of infection in a subsequent examination after he returned home, Philippine health officials said Saturday.

Egypt archaeologists find ancient writer's tomb

Egypt's minister of antiquities says a team of Spanish archaeologists has discovered two tombs in the southern part of the country, one of them belonging to a writer and containing a trove of artifacts including reed pens ...