Climate scientist proposes extremely cold 2014 winter link to global warming

May 23, 2014 by Bob Yirka report
Credit: Larisa Koshkina/public domain

(Phys.org) —Tim Palmer, a climate scientist and professor at the University of Oxford in the U.K. has published a somewhat controversial Perspective piece in the journal Science. In it, he theorizes that heavy thunderstorms in the western tropical Pacific (due to global warming) this past winter caused changes to the flow pattern of the jet stream, which resulted in the "polar vortex" that chilled the northern part of North America for the first four months of 2014.

The winter of 2014 was in the U.S., of that there was no doubt. Subzero temperatures became the norm and heating bills skyrocketed. At the time, very few who experienced it were blaming it on global warming, but that may very well have been the cause anyway, Palmer suggests—despite the fact that haven't been rising lately.

The western Pacific ocean, he suggests, is pulling in and holding on to it—that's why global temperatures haven't been increasing. That heat in the ocean, he adds, resulted in the generation of more thunderstorms in the western Pacific, releasing heat into the atmosphere (and creating powerful typhoons). That infusion of heat, he continues, caused ripples to form in the jet stream, and it was those ripples that caused the in the northern U.S.

Meteorologists generally agree that the cold weather wasn't due to it just being colder, it was because parts of the jet stream plunged south carrying arctic temperatures with it—areas north of the jet stream are typically very cold, while those below it are warm. It was those same conditions that led to a very wet Europe as the jet stream wobbled back and forth, generating storms in the Atlantic, dropping massive amounts of water as the sea gave way to land.

Despite the cold winter, Palmer's theory doesn't suggest future cold winters will be the norm. Instead, he maintains, it was just a one-off—El Niño is due, and it will almost certainly lead to a release of a lot of the heat the ocean has been holding onto, which would mean warmer winters are coming, not colder.

Interestingly, Palmer's theory results in the same outcome as another recent theory presented by Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University—she believes cold snaps like the one this past winter are due to melting Arctic ice, leaving less heat reflected back into the atmosphere and thinning the jet stream and at times causing it to wobble. Others suggest had nothing to do with the chilly winter—it was just climate temperature variability, as happens now and then.

Explore further: Jet stream shift 'could prompt harsher winters'

More information: Record-breaking winters and global climate change, Science 23 May 2014: Vol. 344 no. 6186 pp. 803-804. DOI: 10.1126/science.1255147

Abstract
Just when it looked like spring was arriving this year, the U.S. Midwest slipped back into winter, and Detroit recorded its snowiest season ever (see the photo). Has global warming gone into reverse, or could human emissions of greenhouse gases actually be responsible for this particular record being broken? Although the chances of cold winters can in general be expected to decrease with global warming, climate change linked to the particular circulation patterns that have prevailed in the past decade or so could have played an important role in this record-breaking winter.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Jet stream shift 'could prompt harsher winters'

Feb 16, 2014

A warmer Arctic could permanently affect the pattern of the high-altitude polar jet stream, resulting in longer and colder winters over North America and northern Europe, US scientists say.

Study links California drought to global warming

Apr 24, 2014

While researchers have sometimes connected weather extremes to man-made global warming, usually it is not done in real time. Now a study is asserting a link between climate change and both the intensifying California drought ...

Warm US West, cold East: A 4,000-year pattern

Apr 16, 2014

Last winter's curvy jet stream pattern brought mild temperatures to western North America and harsh cold to the East. A University of Utah-led study shows that pattern became more pronounced 4,000 years ago, ...

Recommended for you

US to propose stricter smog standard

22 minutes ago

Coming full circle on a campaign promise, the Obama administration will propose Wednesday to reduce the amount of smog-forming pollution allowed in the air, which has been linked to asthma, lung damage and ...

Sao Paulo drought issue for global concern

38 minutes ago

He cast his rod happily here for 30 years—but where a river once teemed with fish, Brazilian fisherman Ernane da Silva these days stares out over a valley of weeds and bone dry, sun-parched land.

Conservationists sue over federal coal program

10 hours ago

Conservation groups have sued the government to force federal officials to undertake the first broad environmental review of the government's coal-leasing program in decades.

Owner of ship that damaged reef to pay $840,000

13 hours ago

The federal government and the state of Hawaii have reached an agreement for damages from the owner of a cargo ship that harmed more than 100,000 coral colonies several years ago when it ran aground off Oahu.

User comments : 198

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

thingumbobesquire
2.2 / 5 (36) May 23, 2014
Now everything remarkably proves global warming. Misogynistic anti human science is lunacy.
OdinsAcolyte
2.7 / 5 (23) May 23, 2014
That is not how heat transfer and thermodynamics work.
Gimp
1.9 / 5 (28) May 23, 2014
I know when my cup of hot coffee retains heat in the morning, I look forward to that crisp icy beverage hitting my lips and chilling me to the bone.
Lino235
1.8 / 5 (30) May 23, 2014
And, of course, the simplest explanation for the phenomena is that there was a gigantic volcanic explosion last year in the Philipines, which explains "el nino" and which explains most of the near-term climate on the West Coast. The finest of the volcanic ash is floating around in the jet-stream and reflecting back the sun's heat.

The climate imbeciles strike again.
Z99
2 / 5 (24) May 23, 2014
I used to be fairly confident that increasing (and obviously anthropogenic) [CO₂] must lead to global warming. I still think it is more likely than not. Its been well recognized (in the community) that particulates are "the big unknown" (as well as the response of soil and tundras) but now comes 17 years of "bad predictions", a real failure of their models and silly claims that warming causes cooling. THE major green house gas is water vapor. If our models are failing to predict the water/precipitation cycle, and its effects, then our models are crap. Anybody who claims that climate causes weather is not someone I have any interest in listening to. Someone who points out that climate "contributes to" weather is a moron. I wonder if our atmosphere "contributes to" the weather? Think I'll "do a study", then publish a piece on it...
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (24) May 23, 2014
So maybe it will get hot enough to trigger the next ice age.
sirchick
3 / 5 (18) May 23, 2014
The amount of times here in the UK weather is predicted half a year before it arrives and has become true is so far: 0.

We get predicted hot summers, wet summers, cold winters, warm winters. Every time they make these predictions its the complete opposite!

If they would just stop publicly announcing until they are actually getting accurate results then people would probably start to listen.
Tangent2
3.9 / 5 (18) May 23, 2014
Both studies point to the same underlying cause but argue about how that cause was brought about. Both studies seem to indicate that it is the changes in the jet stream that have brought about the unusually cold weather. Perhaps we should be focusing on this aspect a bit more to determine the underlying cause.
rockwolf1000
3.6 / 5 (23) May 23, 2014
I know when my cup of hot coffee retains heat in the morning, I look forward to that crisp icy beverage hitting my lips and chilling me to the bone.


I would suggest that your brain has been wired incorrectly.
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (23) May 23, 2014
Both studies point to the same underlying cause but argue about how that cause was brought about. Both studies seem to indicate that it is the changes in the jet stream that have brought about the unusually cold weather. Perhaps we should be focusing on this aspect a bit more to determine the underlying cause.
Perhaps the underlying cause is already being studied, and perhaps we should consider the comments of the experts studying the causes that the commonality between the differing aspects is the changing climate.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (27) May 23, 2014
And, of course, the simplest explanation for the phenomena is
@Lino235, @gimp et al,

the simplest explanation would be
That infusion of heat, he continues, caused ripples to form in the jet stream, and it was those ripples that caused the cold weather in the northern U.S.
which was predicted here http://qz.com/163...n-worse/
and is based upon the SCIENCE int the video on the link above which was and has been debated for YEARS, and has been studied in detail since AT LEAST 1988 http://www.scienc...0674cf8f .

you can learn more about jet streams here: http://www.scienc...0674cf8f

Moebius
3.6 / 5 (20) May 23, 2014
Why do people think that the weather will go quietly into climate change and warming? It won't go quietly into a new, increasingly warmer climate. It will react to change just like most living things do. It will only go kicking and screaming.
Tangent2
1.6 / 5 (18) May 23, 2014
Both studies point to the same underlying cause but argue about how that cause was brought about. Both studies seem to indicate that it is the changes in the jet stream that have brought about the unusually cold weather. Perhaps we should be focusing on this aspect a bit more to determine the underlying cause.
Perhaps the underlying cause is already being studied, and perhaps we should consider the comments of the experts studying the causes that the commonality between the differing aspects is the changing climate.


Which comments would those be? The ones were the scientists advocate that their study is the correct measure? And when you say climate change is the reason, what exactly is the mechanism of implementation? To simply say that it is climate change and leave it at that is the same as publishing one of these ridiculous studies that refuse to analyze the actual underlying CAUSE of climate change and simply imply it is of human origins.
EWH
1.8 / 5 (15) May 23, 2014
He is proposing in effect a negative feedback. Warming predictions rely on a presumption of positive feedback increasing the effects of CO2 by hundreds of percent. If negative feedback in fact dominates, then the projections of warming are overstated by an even higher factor. The relatively high stability of climate outside ice age-to- interglacial period shifts indicates that negative feedbacks dominate except when transitioning from one period to the other, and prevent runaway warming or cooling.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (12) May 23, 2014
So maybe it will get hot enough to trigger the next ice age.
I swear none of you has any sense of humor whatsoever. That really cracks me up like an Antarctic ice sheet.
jdswallow
2.5 / 5 (22) May 23, 2014
Farmers' Almanac More Reliable Than Warming Climate Models
Bad Science: It turns out that a 200-year-old publication for farmers beats climate-change scientists in predicting this year's harsh winter as the lowly caterpillar beats supercomputers that can't even predict the past.
Last fall, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Climate Prediction Center (CPC) predicted above-normal temperatures from November through January across much of the continental U.S. The Farmers' Almanac, first published in 1818, predicted a bitterly cold, snowy winter.
The Maine-based Farmers' Almanac's still-secret methodology includes variables such as planetary positions, sunspots, lunar cycles and tidal action. It claims an 80% accuracy rate, surely better than those who obsess over fossil fuels and CO2.
The winter has stayed cold in 2014, and snowfall and snow cover are way above average. USA Today reported on Feb. 14 that there was snow on the ground in part of every state except Florida. That includes Hawaii.
jdswallow
2.1 / 5 (18) May 23, 2014
which was predicted here http://qz.com/163...n-worse/


Here are some FACTS & that is something MR Stumpy will not deal in.
North West Passage blocked with ice - yachts caught
http://www.sail-w...t/113788

April 19, 2014
The Hudson Bay is packed solid with thick ice and seems to be supporting a healthy seal-feeding season for polar bears. Extreme cold and stormy weather has been pervasive throughout the region this year and should lead to a extended hunting season for bears on the ice surface. Here is the link of the most recent Hudson Bay ice chart from Environment Canada Ice Survey.
http://churchillp...preview/

PinkElephant
4.3 / 5 (18) May 23, 2014
@OdinsAcolyte,
That is not how heat transfer and thermodynamics work.
I take it you're a fan of physics. Then you ought to be familiar with the basic thinking behind conservation laws.

Say a huge mass of cold polar air -- dubbed the "Arctic Vortex" -- makes its way from the arctic down south. Does it leave a giant vacuum behind, unfilled by anything at all? Probably not. Probably, some other air from elsewhere has to move up into the arctic, to take place of the air that departed. Where do you think that replacement air would come from? Since it wasn't in the Arctic before, probably from more southern latitudes, right? Meaning, it might be relatively warmer than the air that left the Arctic, right?

So let's look at *global averages* -- rather than regional swings. What's the net global effect?

http://www.ncdc.n...1404.gif

So one more time, what about heat transfer, thermodynamics, or anything else you might want to bring up?
jdswallow
1.8 / 5 (16) May 23, 2014
That infusion of heat, he continues, caused ripples to form in the jet stream, and it was those ripples that caused the cold weather in the northern U.S.
which was predicted here http://qz.com/163...n-worse/]http://qz.com/163...n-worse/[/url]



This is how MR. Stumpy's "informative" piece begins.
"In fact, despite the trolling of Donald Trump and other climate change deniers, global warming is probably contributing to the record cold, as counter-intuitive as that may seem. The key factor is a feedback mechanism of climate change known as Arctic amplification. Here's how to explain the nuts and bolts of it to your under-informed family and friends:
(Notice the key words, probably contributing)
Snow and ice are disappearing from the Arctic region at unprecedented rates, leaving behind relatively warmer open water, which is much less reflective to incoming sunlight than ice. That, among other factors, is causing the northern polar region of our planet to warm at a faster rate than the rest of the northern hemisphere. (And, just to state the obvious, global warming describes a global trend toward warmer temperatures, which doesn't preclude occasional cold-weather extremes.)"
http://qz.com/163...n-worse/]http://qz.com/163...n-worse/[/url]

No way could this site be biased and just what Mr. Stumpy likes to hear, is there?
TechnoCreed
4.1 / 5 (17) May 23, 2014
And, of course, the simplest explanation for the phenomena is...
...to take a look at the global situation. Because a picture is worth a thousand words ;-)
http://www.ncdc.n...1402.gif
PinkElephant
3.9 / 5 (14) May 23, 2014
I also like this one (doesn't talk about record temps, but rather just shows mean departures from the 1950-1980 baseline):

http://data.giss....;pol=reg

An interesting thing to note: the graph beneath the world map, shows 'zonal' departures from baseline. It's rather obvious that everything above 60 degrees north is stupidly warmer than the norm. Notably, that's during the *winter* -- when the north gets the least (if any!) sunlight. But of course, to the deniers it's all about the sun, or cosmic rays, or fairies, or salary, or whatever...

One can play around to achieve different types of plots like the one above, by starting at this landing page:

http://data.giss....mp/maps/
jdswallow
1.8 / 5 (15) May 23, 2014


Say a huge mass of cold polar air -- dubbed the "Arctic Vortex" -- makes its way from the arctic down south. Does it leave a giant vacuum behind, unfilled by anything at all?

So one more time, what about heat transfer, thermodynamics, or anything else you might want to bring up?


 PinkElephant: I'm sure that you can give me a sensible answer about where YOUR jet stream was when these historical winters occurred & will be able to explain what CO2 had to do with these historical events.
The Great Blizzard of 1888, which struck the American Northeast, became the most famous weather event in history. The ferocious storm caught major cities by surprise in mid-March, paralyzing transportation, disrupting communication, and isolating millions of people.
It is believed at least 400 people died as a result of the storm. And the "Blizzard of '88" became iconic.
http://history180...1888.htm
 
THE WINTER OF 1886–1887 WAS HARD ON TH
jdswallow
1.6 / 5 (14) May 23, 2014


Say a huge mass of cold polar air -- dubbed the "Arctic Vortex" -- makes its way from the arctic down south. Does it leave a giant vacuum behind, unfilled by anything at all?

So one more time, what about heat transfer, thermodynamics, or anything else you might want to bring up?


 PinkElephant: I'm sure that you can give me a sensible answer about where YOUR jet stream was when these historical winters occurred & will be able to explain what CO2 had to do with these historical events.
The Great Blizzard of 1888, which struck the American Northeast, became the most famous weather event in history. The ferocious storm caught major cities by surprise in mid-March, paralyzing transportation, disrupting communication, and isolating millions of people.
It is believed at least 400 people died as a result of the storm. And the "Blizzard of '88" became iconic.
http://history180...1888.htm
 

THE WINTER OF 1886–1887 WAS HARD ON THE WEST, ESPECIALLY MONTANA. Following a series of early November blizzards, a 10-day storm blew in on January 9, 1887. Sixteen inches of snow fell in as many hours, and temperatures dropped to 46 below zero. Cattle froze to death while standing upright and ranch hands perished in vain attempts to rescue stock.
http://www.bigsky...887.html
PinkElephant
3.8 / 5 (13) May 23, 2014
@jdswallow,

I'm sure not spamming isn't your forte. But you ought to at least try it on, every now and again...
I'm sure that you can give me a sensible answer about where YOUR jet stream was when these historical winters occurred & will be able to explain what CO2 had to do with these historical events.
I'll try to disabuse you of any delusions with respect to my own humble person. I do not own the Earth's jet streams. I'm not in the possession of even one single puny little personal pocket jet stream. I am not the deity you were looking for...

As to historical blizzards, nobody knows what the jet stream was doing back then, because nobody was around to measure it. I don't see what relevance any of that has to anything, other than perhaps to emphasize that winters in general used to be a lot harsher than they are now. What is today billed as an unusually cold winter season, would have been run-of-the-mill ho-hum non-event a century ago...
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (16) May 23, 2014
No way could this site be biased and just what Mr. Stumpy likes to hear
@jdHooker
and so we continue to see that jd hooker still hasn't learned to read. did you miss the whole next sentence hooker-boy?
the SCIENCE int the video on the link
I specified the video for a reason
Great Blizzard of 1888
attempt at misdirection as well as sowing FUD
LEARN SOME SCIENCE, tinkerbelle.

you've already established that you believe in the farmers almanac (who also publishes the horoscope) so at this point, if you cannot specify a relevant argument, you'll be regarded as nothing but a troll... what is that old phrase? even a broken clock is correct twice a day?

I don't know why I bother even replying to you, as now you will flood us with irrelevant BS, much like Rygg, just stupider.

thanks for proving that you can't (or more likely WON'T) learn
Egleton
4.1 / 5 (13) May 24, 2014
All the world is in the Northern Hemisphere, according to the Yanks.
Perhaps that is where they got the Turtle model from.
Adelaide hovered around 50C in December. What cold? It was not cold, it was stinking hot.
EnricM
4.5 / 5 (15) May 24, 2014
I used to be fairly confident that increasing (and obviously anthropogenic) [CO₂] must lead to global warming. I still think it is more likely than not. Its been well recognized (in the community) that particulates are "the big unknown" (as well as the response of soil and tundras) but now comes 17 years of "bad predictions", a real failure of their models and silly claims that warming causes cooling.


Just a little correction: It was cool in the USA and Canada. In Europe there were the WARMEST WINTER AND SPRING ON RECORD. Read it again, slowly. How do I know it? Well, I am writing this from Holland.

Most of you guys always forget that there is "Global" in "Global Warming".
EnricM
3.9 / 5 (15) May 24, 2014
All the world is in the Northern Hemisphere, according to the Yanks.
Perhaps that is where they got the Turtle model from.
Adelaide hovered around 50C in December. What cold? It was not cold, it was stinking hot.


Worse: All the World is in the USA, here in Holland,Europe we reached the 20C in February and stood around 15C during the rest of the winter (being the normal temperatures below 0).

But hey, who are we to tell the yanks what was happening in the rest of the world? If it's cold in the fridge of a guy in Texas it has to be cold in the rest of the world. I wish them good luck if they decide to visit the Sahara in Anorak ;)
runrig
3.7 / 5 (15) May 24, 2014
Most of you guys always forget that there is "Global" in "Global Warming".

A small correction, if I may Eric....
US deniers forget.
Yep, the clue is indeed in the G word.
jdswallow
2.1 / 5 (18) May 24, 2014
thanks for proving that you can't (or more likely WON'T) learn


I thank you, Mr. Stumpy, for providing a post that sums up the IQ and the intelligence of the typical anthropogenic global warming alarmist. You present a great view into the depths of the mind of the agw alarmist and, if I might use a metaphor, that if depths of your mind were like a pond, one would not get their feet wet stepping into said body of water. You will never understand that the Farmer's Almanac, using whatever method they do, such as which way do dogs turn before they lay down or the strips on a wooly worm, provide them with better out comes than what NOAA predicted using computers that were fed the same sort of biased information you love to use in your links. NOAA use to be a very good scientific based organization before they got taken over by folks who, like you, have an agenda to promote.

"Last fall, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Climate Prediction Center (CPC) predicted above-normal temperatures from November through January across much of the continental U.S. The Farmers' Almanac, first published in 1818, predicted a bitterly cold, snowy winter." So Mr. Stumpy, who was right?
jdswallow
2.2 / 5 (17) May 24, 2014

"The Norse arrived in Greenland 1,000 years ago and became very well established," says Schweger, describing the Viking farms and settlements that crowded the southeast and southwest coasts of Greenland for almost 400 years.
http://www.folio..../03.html

"Evidence of Viking Outpost Found in Canada
Sharpeners may be smoking guns in quest for New World's second Viking site.
Archaeologists have long known that Viking seafarers set sail for the New World around A.D. 1000. A popular Icelandic saga tells of the exploits of Leif Eriksson, a Viking chieftain from Greenland who sailed westward to seek his fortune. According to the saga, Eriksson stopped long enough on Baffin Island to walk the coast—named Helluland, an Old Norse word meaning "stone-slab land"—before heading south to a place he called Vinland."
http://news.natio...utherlan

jdswallow
1.9 / 5 (17) May 24, 2014

Yep, the clue is indeed in the G word.


Tony Banton: Don't you remember all of the time and energy that folks like you have expended trying to suggest that the RWP, MWP & the LIA were confined to northern Europe because you can't explain how they occurred without the influence of your devil in the sky that you have never seen but just know he is there, CO2.

I do not want to be anything even remotely like Mr. Stumpy and just post total nonsense; so, will provide a couple of links that prove that there were warmer times on Greenland and in N.
Canada.

Climate change killed off Viking settlement on Greenland
http://www.eartht...and/942/
Norse ruins at Brattahlid.
http://www.greenl...tory.htm
jdswallow
1.8 / 5 (15) May 24, 2014
As to historical blizzards, nobody knows what the jet stream was doing back then, because nobody was around to measure it. I don't see what relevance any of that has to anything, other than perhaps to emphasize that winters in general used to be a lot harsher than they are now.


"Weaker zonal wind speeds favor slower moving Rossby waves, which leads to more persistent weather patterns" ; or is it "polar vortexes" now after last winter that would not seem to end? It doesn't appear that there was a very persistent pattern in North and South Dakota in 1936 when both the record high and record low temperatures that still hold were set.

Please take note of the information given below and then tell me about drastic shifts in the climate like some want to maintain.
I would certainly hope that they are able to notice the year that these records were set.

In Steele, North Dakota on July 6, 1936 the record HIGH Temperature for the state was 121⁰ F.
In Parshall, N. Dakota on Feb. 15, 1936 the record LOW Temperature for the state was -60⁰F.
In GANN VALLEY, South Dakota on July 5, 1936 the record Maximum Temperature for the state was 120°F
In MC INTOSH, South Dakota on February 17, 1936 the record Minimum Temperature for the state was -58°F
http://www.ncdc.n.../records

As Thomas Huxley famously stated: "The great tragedy in science: the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."

orti
1.6 / 5 (13) May 24, 2014
Makes perfect sense -- to a warming monger.
Rustybolts
1.6 / 5 (7) May 24, 2014
Nope, not enough ripples.
runrig
3.7 / 5 (14) May 24, 2014
The positioning of the cold/air mass causes the formation of the Polar jet-stream .... and the Polar jet stream causes the positioning of the air masses.
It is chicken v egg - which comes first?
A jet is created by the warm/cold being side by side. The gretaer the contrast over a a shorter distance governs its strength ( warm/cold gradient>density gradient>pressure gradient>wind>Coriolis>jet)

Put simply though, a push from either the warm side of the jet north or a push from the cold side south will cause the jet to move in that location of the hemisphere. The two often come side by side.

Notable cold spells in W Europe and the E states are often caused by a WEAKENING in the Polar vortex. This happens first in the Strat when warm air is injected into the vortex there. A v cold vortex is hard/impossible to shift often (this last winter). As warmer air aloft reverses the winds there (to E'ly) this wind regime filters down to the Trop and reverses winds there, generating a -ve AO (HP).
runrig
3.7 / 5 (14) May 24, 2014
Cont

Highs have divergent winds at the surface and with air sinking in the HP zone it has to go somewhere - so it pushes south. This push south will mean that the jet upstream has to go north - so reinforcing the "wriggle". Then the jet can become "locked" in a stationary position as the dynamics balance out in the trough/ridge train around the globe.

The very strong Polar vortex over N Canada this last winter had much different beginnings. Warm air was never able to intrude. It just got colder ( in the Strat ) and slowly moved to become quasi-stationary over N Canada.
I do not know the causes of this - I do know though that it was not the cold air in the Trop that was giving the "push" - for the reasons I've outlined. The winds in the Vortex were convergent (LP) - so the Jet must have been given a push N from downstream causing the jet to move anomalously north over Alaska/Siberia (which it did) and then diving down E of the Rockies.
runrig
3.5 / 5 (15) May 24, 2014
Makes perfect sense -- to a warming monger.

No it makes perfect sense if you understand Meteorology.
I do.
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (14) May 24, 2014
You will never understand that the Farmer's Almanac, using whatever method they do
@jdmoron the illiterate hooker
the farmers almanac says they use sunspot activity, historical data, moon phase, tidal action and a complicated algorithm created by David Young http://www.farmer...recasts/
the farmers almanac is as accurate as any other psychic phenomenon, and it's followers are also similar in that they are likely ready to support all successes as well as justify the failures. It is fascinating that you would also put such stock in its predictions. Guess that says a lot about your mentality: NOT SCIENTIFIC nor able to comprehend the scientific method
this is why you cannot fathom nor comprehend NOAA and modern science. it involves things that scare you, like physics.

thanks for supporting my previous assumptions about your mental capacity
you are nothing more than a trolling spammer with the mental capacity of a 13 y/o hormonal schizophrenic in a coma

Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (15) May 24, 2014
using whatever method they do, such as which way do dogs turn before they lay down or the strips on a wooly worm, provide them with better out comes
@jd illiterate hooker
one last parting shot: in the last ten years, I have lived in the mountains and I've bought the almanac every year. I also compare results to NOAA which I track daily. the results so far:
ACCURACY (short term= next 3 days, long term= more than 3 days)
Almanac - 0% short term forecast, 22% long term
NOAA - 100% short term forecast, 75% long term

this is accuracy tracked over the last ten years specific to my area. the accuracy of the published articles fares roughly the same (especially the dog's turning direction before laying down, which is dependent upon the dog, the environment and more factors). Your belief is the key to its success, as well as its ability to put $$$ for PR and the old timers handing faith down like herpes... or religion.
RhoidSlayer
1.5 / 5 (15) May 24, 2014
is climate science math or a rorschach test ?

CONSENSUS was the earth was flat .
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (15) May 24, 2014
is climate science math or a rorschach test ?

CONSENSUS was the earth was flat .
Oh it's definitely science, as in: "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

There was NEVER a consensus that the Earth was flat.
antigoracle
2 / 5 (12) May 24, 2014
Me thinks Mother Earth must be going through menopause.
nevermark
3.7 / 5 (12) May 24, 2014
Everything changes climate. Climate is always changing. So its not the least bit surprising that quickly increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere is having an effect. The primary problem is not that climate is changing as usual, but that it is changing faster than usual. When that happens ecosystems get damaged and take a long time (much longer than human generations) to recover.

We are now in the sixth mass extinction with no signs of extinction rates dropping. Fish, land animals, etc. are reducing in numbers with many species falling to the point of no possible recovery, or only recovery if somehow humans could stop development.
nevermark
3.8 / 5 (11) May 24, 2014
There is no name calling in the scientific paper being quoted above, only in some of the comments that follow. This paper is just a humble step in the search for knowledge, like every other paper. The scientists conclusions and their rationale are openly published precisely so they can both be vetted by others.

Valid disagreement or agreement, if any here are have enough expertise to make that call, would not need to be disrespectful to the paper or its authors.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) May 24, 2014
The scientists conclusions and their rationale are openly published precisely so they can both be vetted by others.


Not all openly published.
Shootist
1.4 / 5 (11) May 24, 2014
"Generally speaking, I'm much more of a conformist, but it happens I have strong views about climate because I think the majority is badly wrong, and you have to make sure if the majority is saying something that they're not talking nonsense." - Freeman Dyson
RealityCheck
3.3 / 5 (14) May 24, 2014
@jdswallow. Give it a rest, mate. You come across either as ignorant of basic convection/heat-exchange & transport geo-mechanisms and dynamics OR as a political/religious/mercenary 'shill' with your narrow-view 'picture' of what is happening GLOBALLY as a WHOLE dynamic system in transition to new patterns/equilibriums of both heat content and air/water flows/currents. If you've ever owned an old-fashioned 'ice-box', you would be able to understand how heat flows via 'convection' works to re-distribute heat. In that process, for as long as existing/additional heat loads exist, localized 'cold-spots' develop depending on obstructions/currents as the system is trying to 'equalize' heat distribution in overall materials/shapes/distributions involved. You can see this for yourself every day, as cooler air moves to displace warmer air and causing 'weather' as water moisture content gets moved around with the air. Same in oceans, cooler waters move towards tropics and warmer water vice versa
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (15) May 24, 2014
in the last ten years, I have lived in the mountains and I've bought the almanac every year. I also compare results to NOAA which I track daily. the results so far:
ACCURACY (short term= next 3 days, long term= more than 3 days)
Almanac - 0% short term forecast, 22% long term
NOAA - 100% short term forecast, 75% long term
-- Cap'n Stunty
Wow, despite their abysmal record you continue to purchase the Almanac. You must be a liar or just plain stupid. So, which is it?
Egleton
4.6 / 5 (10) May 24, 2014
The heat engine depends on a difference in temperature. The greater the difference the more powerful the engine.
So far we still have ice at the poles; therefore as the planet warms the temperature difference increases: therefore we can expect more violent events.
Enjoy.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) May 24, 2014
The scientists conclusions and their rationale are openly published precisely so they can both be vetted by others.


Not all openly published.
Yes loon, they are. Show otherwise you freak of un-nature.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (12) May 24, 2014
Wow, despite the "Science" being settled, not one of the AGW Cult's CO2 filled crystal balls saw this coming. So, the Chicken Littles take another gulp of the Kool Aid and come here to spew their ignorance.
gwrede
3.6 / 5 (7) May 24, 2014
"Midwest slipped back into winter, and Detroit recorded its snowiest season ever (see the photo)."

Well, being from the North, I took a hard look at the photo and I see that there is not an ounce of snow in it. (And I'd expect everybody else from my latitudes to agree.)

The white stuff is frost. (To be exact, less than half an inch of it, too.) That means that (1) there has to be a lake nearby (2) this was taken in the fall when the lake was warm and a sudden cold front passed us last night.

//////

Please, a little less sloppiness and ignorance, if I may ask.
Or, downright, a little less arrogance and cavalier attitude, thank you.

Indiana_Curmudgeon
4.4 / 5 (7) May 24, 2014
Cold in a regional area of the US, California had record high temps and the rest a fairly normal winter. More moisture in the air who wouldn't expect more snow?
RhoidSlayer
1.4 / 5 (10) May 24, 2014
Oh it's definitely science, as in: "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

There was NEVER a consensus that the Earth was flat.


con·sen·sus
k?n'sens?s/
noun
noun: consensus; plural noun: consensuses

general agreement.
"a consensus of opinion among judges"

for most of the mans existance , the earth was "flat as far as the eye could see" , and men mutinied in fear of sailing off it's edge .

Oh it's definitely science, as in: "... systematic study ..."

predictable , testable , reproducable .

as in one man's theory is anothers fancy , unless you have the science to prove it .
astronomy predicted the return of a comet by discovering periodicity ,
millenia later , math was discovered to support a theory .

what is a 'falling star' ? a consensus from the past .
jdswallow
1.9 / 5 (14) May 24, 2014
"2013: Middle East experiences worst snow storm since 1953.
13 Dec 2013
"The worst snow storms since 1953 have caused chaos in Israel and the Palestinian territories and exacerbated an already severe crisis among Syrian refugees"
http://www.telegr...ast.html

This is what winter is like in Ulaanbaatar, where I have been.
http://www.themon...old.html

"Snow falls in Vietnam
Unusual weather strikes east Asia."
Last updated: 16 Dec 2013 09:39
Snow has fallen in Northern Vietnam for the first time in many years."
http://www.aljaze...746.html

"Sub-zero arctic blast strikes US" January 6, 2014 2:01 AM
http://news.yahoo...259.html

"REPORTS: Rare Ice, Snow Storm Halts Atlanta Traffic Through the Night"
January 29, 2014; 9:01 PM
http://www.accuwe...22639719

jdswallow
1.9 / 5 (13) May 24, 2014
"Tropics Go Wintery! … Northern Thailand Declared Cold Disaster Zone … Snow In Vietnam … In Turkey "Animals Literally Freeze Where They Stand"!
http://notrickszo...shivers/

The volume of sea ice in the Arctic is 50 percent higher than it was last fall, satellite measurements show
http://www.alaska...percent/

PUBLISHED DECEMBER 26, 2013
"Had the ship carrying the trio of explorers in 1912, the Aurora, gotten icebound the same way the M.V. Akademik Shokalskiy did, there would have been no rescue option and certain death.
http://news.natio...tl_ot_w#

"Snow closes roads in Israel, is a source of wonder in Egypt"
December 13, 2013
http://www.latime...nXhTlPFS

jdswallow
1.9 / 5 (13) May 24, 2014
Most of you guys always forget that there is "Global" in "Global Warming".

A small correction, if I may Eric....
US deniers forget.
Yep, the clue is indeed in the G word.


Tony Banton (AKA, runrig): Do the events outlined in the links below qualify last winter, 2013-14, as being "global"?

"It is really a rare occasion for Fort Peck to freeze completely over prior to Christmas…."
http://billingsga...156.html

"Thai government declares disaster zones as people are caught up in plummeting winter temperatures... of 15C"
http://www.dailym...res.html

According to the Changrai Times the frost temperature was recorded at -1.4 degrees Celsius…."
"During a weekly cabinet meeting today, members were briefed on plummeting temperatures in Thailand's upper parts and the villagers' lack of warm clothes and blankets.
http://www.dailym...res.html"

"Ms Pornnapha said the weather this year was colder than last year." http://www.bangko...n-region
jdswallow
1.7 / 5 (12) May 24, 2014
You can see this for yourself every day, as cooler air moves to displace warmer air and causing 'weather' as water moisture content gets moved around with the air. Same in oceans, cooler waters move towards tropics and warmer water vice ve

RealityCheck: Could this below explain what you are babbling about? I sure hope so.
"The interaction between water temperature and salinity effects density and density determines thermohaline circulation, or the global conveyor belt. The global conveyor belt is a global-scale circulation process that occurs over a century-long time scale. Water sinks in the North Atlantic, traveling south around Africa, rising in the Indian Ocean or further on in the Pacific, then returning toward the Atlantic on the surface only to sink again in the North Atlantic starting the cycle again."

"As water travels through the water cycle, some water will become part of The Global Conveyer Belt and can take up to 1,000 years to complete this global circuit. It represents in a simple way how ocean currents carry warm surface waters from the equator toward the poles and moderate global climate." [The Global Conveyer Belt has suddenly stopped for several speculated reason in the past and caused dramatic and rapid climate changes always to the cold side; therefore, warm is preferable to cold any day]
http://science.na...r-cycle/
jdswallow
1.8 / 5 (13) May 25, 2014

"North West Passage - ice levels alarming for transiting yachts
'Comparison between 2012 and 2013' .

"There are more pronounced ice 'choke-points' for vessels attempting a NW Passage than in recorded history. Seven vessels have been waiting around Lancaster Sound unable to navigate south nor west while other vessels in the Western Arctic have been delayed in reaching Cambridge Bay from ice in Amundsen Gulf."
http://www.sail-w...kerCID=0

Churchill ice report and summer preview
April 19, 2014
The Hudson Bay is packed solid with thick ice and seems to be supporting a healthy seal-feeding season for polar bears. Extreme cold and stormy weather has been pervasive throughout the region this year and should lead to a extended hunting season for bears on the ice surface. Here is the link of the most recent Hudson Bay ice chart from Environment Canada Ice Survey.
http://churchillp...preview/
jdswallow
1.8 / 5 (13) May 25, 2014
"The scientists were reluctant to point directly to the cause of the striking changes in the climate. But the annual reports are typically used by the federal government to prepare for the future, and in June president Barack Obama used his climate address to direct government agenciesto begin planning for decades of warming atmosphere and rising seas."
http://www.thegua...ntpage=1


I guess NOAA is unaware of some facts; such as:
Arctic Sea Ice Volume Up 50%
By CBC News | December 27, 2013 - 11:33 am
http://www.alaska...percent/

Global Sea Ice Extent is 913,000 sq km above the 1981-2010 mean and is well above the one standard deviation mark.
http://sunshineho...cketing/
jdswallow
1.5 / 5 (12) May 25, 2014
It appears that once in a while even this site, briefly, gets caught telling the truth.

"The winter of 2014 was cold in the U.S., of that there was no doubt. Subzero temperatures became the norm and heating bills skyrocketed. At the time, very few who experienced it were blaming it on global warming, but that may very well have been the cause anyway, Palmer suggests—despite the fact that global temperatures haven't been rising lately."
http://phys.org/n...er.html#

I wonder when NOAA will ever go back to telling the truth again like they use to before becoming a political tool.
"Noaa report says Arctic sea ice is disappearing at unprecedented pace
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration climate study puts 2012 among the 10 warmest years on record"
Tuesday 6 August 2013 20.30

Egleton
3.6 / 5 (14) May 25, 2014
Nice try JD Swallow.
The arctic sea ice volumes trend is still down, if you read your link.
I see that the Thai story is 90 days old.
.
Have a look at a view of our planet from space. See the thin layer of air? See the vast volume of water? Which do you think can hold the most heat? So why does everyone obsess about the temperature of the air?
.
I find no comfort in your links.
mooster75
3.9 / 5 (11) May 25, 2014
for most of the mans existance , the earth was "flat as far as the eye could see" , and men mutinied in fear of sailing off it's edge .

Don't be silly. Sailors of all people knew the earth was at least curved, if not round. They were afraid of sailing too far from land because, prior to certain navigational advancements, losing sight of land meant you were lost.
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (10) May 25, 2014
con·sen·sus k?n'sens?s/ noun: consensus; plural noun: consensuses:
general agreement.
"a consensus of opinion among judges"

for most of the mans existance , the earth was "flat as far as the eye could see" , and men mutinied in fear of sailing off it's edge .
At least you got the definition right! You do, of course, have some support for your fictional claim that a concensus of sailers mutinied for "fear of sailing off it's(sic) edge"?

as in one man's theory is anothers fancy , unless you have the science to prove it .
astronomy predicted the return of a comet by discovering periodicity ,
millenia later , math was discovered to support a theory .

what is a 'falling star' ? a consensus from the past .
A thing that is not known or not understood cannot, by definition, be the subject of "concensus". There was no consensus as to what a falling star was, however you might define the word. You are grasping at straws.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (11) May 25, 2014
jdswallow = gish-gallop. 7 posts in a row, all of them containing quote mines and misrepresented data, combined with multiple claims of conspiracy. No wonder he and his ilk have become irrelevant to the conversation.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) May 25, 2014
You must be a liar or just plain stupid
@antigoracle
didnt say I bought it FOR me, did I? Wife likes it... guess you wouldn't know about something like that
for most of the mans existance , the earth was "flat as far as the eye could see" , and men mutinied in fear of sailing off it's edge
@RhoidSlayer
Actually, most sailors were aware that the earth was not "flat" (See mooster75 comments) which is where the "sailing off the edge" comes from. They knew the first visible part of a ship on the horizon was the masts, NOT the ships hull... they knew that the earth was curved from observation. You couldn't be a sailor very long and NOT observe this fact, which is why so many feared losing sight of land.
jdswallow
1.7 / 5 (11) May 25, 2014


We are now in the sixth mass extinction with no signs of extinction rates dropping. Fish, land animals, etc. are reducing in numbers with many species falling to the point of no possible recovery, or only recovery if somehow humans could stop development.


nevermark : Are you sure about what you are saying? Where are your FACTS?

"The poison dart frog Ranitomeya amazonica is one of more than 1,200 new species of plants and vertebrates discovered in the Amazon rain forest between 1999 and 2009, the international conservation group WWF announced Tuesday in a new report highlighting the region's biodiversity.
http://news.natio...ictures/

"NAGOYA, Aichi, Japan, October 26, 2010 (ENS) – At least 1,200 new species have been discovered in the Amazon ecosystem, at an average rate of one every three days during the decade from 1999 through 2009, the global conservation organization WWF revealed today in a new report.
This is a greater number of species than the combined total of new species found over a similar 10-year period in other areas of high biological diversity – including Borneo, the Congo Basin and the Eastern Himalayas, WWF said in the report, "Amazon Alive!: A Decade of Discoveries 1999-2009."
Presented to delegates from 193 countries at the UN Convention on Biodiversity in Nagoya, the WWF report details the discoveries of 39 mammals, 16 birds, 55 reptiles, 216 amphibians, 257 fish and 637 plants – all new to science."
http://www.ens-ne...-01.html

jdswallow
1.9 / 5 (12) May 25, 2014
jdswallow = gish-gallop. 7 posts in a row, all of them containing quote mines and misrepresented data, combined with multiple claims of conspiracy. No wonder he and his ilk have become irrelevant to the conversation.


Maggnus: Please take the time to point out what that is relevant to this conversation, or another, for that matter, in the last two post that you present when the topic is this:
"(Phys.org) —Tim Palmer, a climate scientist and professor at the University of Oxford in the U.K. has published a somewhat controversial Perspective piece in the journal Science. In it, he theorizes that heavy thunderstorms in the western tropical Pacific (due to global warming) this past winter caused changes to the flow pattern of the jet stream, which resulted in the "polar vortex" that chilled the northern part of North America for the first four months of 2014."

I doubt that you are able to discover the misinformation in just this short excerpt: "that chilled the northern part of North America for the first four months of 2014." The truth would be nice to see in that it was more than just the northern part and started far longer ago than the first 4 months of 2014.
jdswallow
2 / 5 (12) May 25, 2014
Nice try JD Swallow.
The arctic sea ice volumes trend is still down, if you read your link.
I see that the Thai story is 90 days old.

.
I find no comfort in your links.


Egleton: Just how long do you think that record cold temperature can last in the tropics, where it is unusual until recently? At Doi Angkhang , Thailand there are prominently displayed photos of flowers with ice cycles on them that were taken in November 22, 2006, first time ever for that to happen.

The ocean has always held heat and as I explained to RealityCheck a few post down from yours, if you feel like learning something, for a change, you can bring up the links and read the information. How can the arctic ice trend be down when "Arctic Sea Ice Volume Up 50%"? Another proven point is that cold water absorbs CO2 while warm water gives it up and therefore the atmospheric additions of CO2 come up to 800 years after warming events in the climate. This also runs counter to warmest now claiming that the ocean is turning acidic. It is hard for them to keep their latest delusion straight. Believe what you want and what makes you happy & gives you comfort about your boogie man in the sky that has never been proven to have anything to do with the climate of today's earth.

runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) May 25, 2014
Data from GISS for Global ave temps
Nov 2013 to Apr 2014:

http://data.giss....;pol=rob

http://data.giss....;pol=rob

http://data.giss....;pol=rob

http://data.giss....;pol=rob

http://data.giss....;pol=rob

http://data.giss....;pol=rob

Notice how little white to blue Colder than ave there is in the NH.
The USA copped the majority of the cold on offer in the NH this last winter.
Which is what lies under the Polar vortex of course. It being centred over N Canada for the majority of the period.
See how warm is Europe east through Russia to Alaska and also the Arctic.
pandora4real
4.2 / 5 (5) May 25, 2014
That's really odd from a UK resident. In fact the UK winter was warmer and wetter than normal, quite warm in Scandinavia. It was just the reverse the last few years. That's what I had been wondering about. Do warm winters in higher latitudes push the polar vortex away resulting in a colder winter on the other side of it?
pandora4real
4 / 5 (8) May 25, 2014
I know when my cup of hot coffee retains heat in the morning, I look forward to that crisp icy beverage hitting my lips and chilling me to the bone.


You accept your cup of coffee as a model for the ocean. Classic case of UCD. https://www.faceb...46853678
RealityCheck
3.2 / 5 (11) May 25, 2014
@jdswallow.
RealityCheck, Could this below explain what you are babbling about? I sure hope so.
"The interaction between water temperature and salinity effects density and density determines thermohaline circulation, or the global conveyor belt. The global conveyor belt is a global-scale circulation process that occurs over a century-long time scale. Water sinks in the North Atlantic, traveling south around Africa, rising in the Indian Ocean or further on in the Pacific, then returning toward the Atlantic on the surface only to sink again in the North Atlantic starting the cycle again."

"As water travels through the water cycle, some water will become part of The Global Conveyer Belt and can take up to 1,000 years to complete this global circuit.
No, mate. What's the matter with you? It is about "weather", remember? Cold winter etc? Remember?

How many dishonest Troll/Shill "strawmen" can you make and post in one day!

You evaded the point I made. Troll/Shill. Nasty.
jdswallow
2 / 5 (12) May 25, 2014
@jdswallow. Give it a rest, mate. You come across either as ignorant of basic convection/heat-exchange & transport geo-mechanisms and dynamics OR as a political/religious/mercenary 'shill' with your narrow-view 'picture' of what is happening GLOBALLY as a WHOLE dynamic system in transition to new patterns/equilibriums of both heat content and air/water flows/currents. If you've ever owned an old-fashioned 'ice-box', you would be able to understand how heat flows via 'convection' works to re-distribute heat. In that process, for as long as existing/additional heat loads exist, localized 'cold-spots' develop depending on obstructions/currents as the system is trying to 'equalize' heat distribution in overall materials/shapes/distributions involved. You can see this for yourself every day, as cooler air moves to displace warmer air and causing 'weather' as water moisture content gets moved around with the air. Same in oceans, cooler waters move towards tropics and warmer water vice versa

So, RealityCheck, all that you posted above was about "weather"? You sure could have fooled me with your double talking nonsense and then you allude to the fact that anyone that gives you valid facts that contest your delusional ideas; then they are a "troll". How many senseless, say nothing about anything, post can you make in one day?
PinkElephant
3.8 / 5 (10) May 25, 2014
@jdswallow,
At least 1,200 new species have been discovered in the Amazon ecosystem
Right, since we haven't yet discovered all the species out there, means species extinction rates aren't sky-high and accelerating:

http://www.biolog..._crisis/

Quite some logic there, sparky.

Since you trolls appear incapable of reading links other people post (though you have quite a habit of flooding discussion threads with your own link noise...), I'll quote it for you:
Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural "background" rate of about one to five species per year. Scientists estimate we're now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day [1]. It could be a scary future indeed, with as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century [2].
PinkElephant
3.8 / 5 (10) May 25, 2014
"that chilled the northern part of North America for the first four months of 2014." The truth would be nice to see in that it was more than just the northern part and started far longer ago than the first 4 months of 2014.
You might want to check out the links to charts runrig so dutifully and helpfully assembled for you (5 posts above, as I write this.) The truth *would* set you free, if you weren't so obviously scared to death of both freedom and truth...
How can the arctic ice trend be down when "Arctic Sea Ice Volume Up 50%"?
It's up from a historic record low, dimwit. Even having recovered 50% from an abnormal low, it's still lower than normal -- and the long-term trend of decreasing ice coverage and volume continues uninterrupted:

http://nsidc.org/...icenews/
PinkElephant
3.8 / 5 (10) May 25, 2014
cold water absorbs CO2 while warm water gives it up
True, only when CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere aren't otherwise being driven by another source. With ever-more CO2 being added to the atmosphere through fossil fuel combustion, the absorption/sequestration by oceans is being overwhelmed by anthropogenic emissions. CO2 concentrations in [sea]water aren't just a function of the water's temperature; they're a function of the partial pressure of CO2 both in its dissolved phase and in the air column above the water. The two must balance.
and therefore the atmospheric additions of CO2 come up to 800 years after warming events in the climate
There's no "therefore" here, because the current GW isn't naturally caused -- it's anthropogenic, therefore the 'A' in AGW -- and so this time around, CO2 precedes the warming.
This also runs counter to warmest now claiming that the ocean is turning acidic.
Ocean acidification is a fact, and "runs counter" nothing.
jdswallow
2 / 5 (10) May 25, 2014


Notice how little white to blue Colder than ave there is in the NH.
The USA copped the majority of the cold on offer in the NH this last winter.
Which is what lies under the Polar vortex of course. It being centred over N Canada for the majority of the period.
See how warm is Europe east through Russia to Alaska and also the Arctic.


Tony Banton (AKA, runrig):
They all show a Zonal Mean of down, especially these two. Also note where the
"Note: Gray areas signify missing data." is located. It is in the colder regions, naturally.
There are exactly three weather stations used by GISS that are north of 80 degrees. Alert on Ellesmere Island is one of them. One other is a Russian station on Hayes Island in the Franz Josef Archipelago & it is getting cooler in the summer. The third is Nord on northern Greenland. It is getting warmer in all seasons.


GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
http://data.giss....;pol=rob


GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
http://data.giss....;pol=rob

I realize that Hansen has retired but this is the legacy that he left behind at GISS.
"Why Hansen Had To Corrupt The Temperature Record"
http://stevengodd...-record/

jdswallow
2.2 / 5 (10) May 25, 2014

Quite some logic there, sparky.

Since you trolls appear incapable of reading links other people post (though you have quite a habit of flooding discussion threads with your own link noise...), I'll quote it for you:
Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural "background" rate of about one to five species per year. Scientists estimate we're now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day [1]. It could be a scary future indeed, with as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century [2].


"GLOBAL WARMING AND LIFE ON EARTH
Global warming presents the gravest threat to life on Earth in all of human history."

This above makes your site that you seem so proud of somewhat suspect, as well as what they maintain about the polar bears.
In a joint press conference NOAA and NASA have just released data for the global surface temperature for 2013. In summary they both show that the 'pause' in global surface temperature that began in 1997, according to some estimates, continues.
http://www.thegwp...ntinues/

"The iconic polar bear, fast losing the sea-ice habitat beneath its feet, has become a broadly recognized symbol of the harm global warming is causing in the fragile Arctic…"
http://www.biolog...dex.html

Global population of polar bears has increased by 2,650-5,700 since 2001
http://polarbears...ce-2001/

When will you people ever deal with the truth?

PinkElephant
3.5 / 5 (11) May 25, 2014
When will you people ever deal with the truth?
We are. You aren't. The polar bear populations are on the rise because they're a protected species since the 1970's, not because there's no warming. The long-term impacts on that species aren't slated to be happening today, or tomorrow, dimwit. The danger zone for that species is a century into the future. The trajectory, however, is unstoppable. But polar bears aren't the only species under threat. When climate changes significantly and abruptly, all kinds of species die off. That's part of what's causing the present, ongoing, and accelerating mass extinction. The other part being the stress put on natural habitats and ecosystems by human industrial, agricultural, and land-development activities -- including land use changes, pollution, transplantation of invasive species, water diversion and watershed landscape alteration, over-fishing, over-harvesting, monocultures, and so on and on and on.
jdswallow
2.1 / 5 (9) May 25, 2014
The truth *would* set you free, if you weren't so obviously scared to death of both freedom and truth...
How can the arctic ice trend be down when "Arctic Sea Ice Volume Up 50%"?
It's up from a historic record low, dimwit. Even having recovered 50% from an abnormal low, it's still lower than normal -- and the long-term trend of decreasing ice coverage and volume continues uninterrupted:

http://nsidc.org/...icenews/


The date was 11 August 1958 and the Skate had just become the first submarine to surface at the North Pole.
http://www.navalh...th-pole/

1969: the SS Manhattan, a reinforced supertanker sent to test the viability of the passage for the transport of oil, made the passage. The route was deemed not to be cost effective.
http://www.fcpnor...xplorers

Cache of historical Arctic sea ice maps discovered
Arctic Sea ice data collected by DMI 1893-1961
http://wattsupwit...covered/

It would be great if you could show some intelligence and not the normal alarmist mentality by refraining from the name calling when you know that the facts are not on your side.



jdswallow
2.1 / 5 (10) May 25, 2014
It's up from a historic record low, dimwit. Even having recovered 50% from an abnormal low, it's still lower than normal -- and the long-term trend of decreasing ice coverage and volume continues uninterrupted:

http://nsidc.org/...icenews/

PinkElephant: Please be advised that these charts only go back to April 1979; therefore, logical people wonder what the ice was like when this happened:

AMUNDSEN EXPEDITION
1. June 16, 1903
http://www.pbs.or...-nf.html


"Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot…"
http://www.sott.n...gs-Melt-

"Not only did the Skate surface in virtually ice-free water at the North Pole, but the weather was mild enough that crewmen went out to chip a bit of ice off the sub's hull."
http://www.ihatet...ubmarine
PinkElephant
3.8 / 5 (10) May 25, 2014
PinkElephant: Please be advised that these charts only go back to April 1979
jdswallow: please be advised that your 50% recovery claim only goes back to *last year*. Whereas longer-term trends are available starting in April 1979.
refraining from the name calling
Why would I do that, when you work so hard for it, and so richly deserve it?
therefore, logical people wonder what the ice was like when this happened:
Logical people could go and Google it. There have been studies done, using various proxies, that reconstruct historical polar ice cover. Must I do it for you, or are you perhaps capable of doing the search on your own? Oh, whom am I kidding... Here you go, boobie:

http://tamino.wor...tic-ice/

And in case you are incapable of following references (again, whom am I kidding?):

http://www.nature...581.html
http://www.nature..._F3.html
jdswallow
2.1 / 5 (10) May 25, 2014
When will you people ever deal with the truth?
We are. You aren't. The polar bear populations are on the rise because they're a protected species since the 1970's, not because there's no warming. The long-term impacts on that species aren't slated to be happening today, or tomorrow, dimwit. The danger zone for that species is a century into the future. The trajectory, however, is unstoppable. But polar bears aren't the only species under threat.


PinkElephant: You really do not know what you prevaricate about, do you?
"Harry Flaherty, chair of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board in the capital of Iqaluit, says the polar bear population in the region, along the Davis Strait, has doubled during the past 10 years. He questions the official figures, which are based to a large extent on helicopter surveys.
Forty years ago, old-timers living in the area around Hudson Bay were lucky to see a polar bear, Nirlungayuk says. "Now there are bears living as far south as James Bay."

"In the Western Hudson Bay area, where harvest quotas were reduced by 80 percent four years ago, communities are complaining about the number of polar bears. "Now people can look out the window and see as many as 20 polar bears at the ice-flow edge," Flaherty says."

Both Nirlungayuk and Flaherty ridicule media claims that the polar bear is threatened or on the verge of extinction.

Adds Flaherty: "At the end of the day, the King of the North will always be here. When we hear that polar bears are headed towards extinction, we just kind of smile at ourselves."
http://www.examin...cals-say


PinkElephant
3.5 / 5 (11) May 25, 2014
You really do not know what you prevaricate about, do you?
Oh please, stop putting me upon such a pedestal. I could never live up to your level -- nor would I wish to.
Both Nirlungayuk and Flaherty ridicule media claims that the polar bear is threatened or on the verge of extinction.
On the verge of extinction, they say? Ridiculous.
Adds Flaherty: "At the end of the day, the King of the North will always be here. When we hear that polar bears are headed towards extinction, we just kind of smile at ourselves."
Of course, you won't be around to cry about it at the end of the century. But who cares to think long-term, when the end of a day is all that matters to dimwits the world over...
PinkElephant
3.8 / 5 (10) May 25, 2014
Here, a free gift to those wishing to learn the lessons of natural variability as it applies to arctic sea ice:

http://nsidc.org/...ar1=2014
jdswallow
2.6 / 5 (10) May 25, 2014
There have been studies done, using various proxies, that reconstruct historical polar ice cover. Must I do it for you, or are you perhaps capable of doing the search on your own? Oh, whom am I kidding... Here you go, boobie:

http://tamino.wor...tic-ice/


Whatever, PinkElephant, goes with proxies and discounts the actual Ice conditions in the immediate past that I presented you with, that is the way you lie your way around all of these subjects, like Mann & his hockey stick. You are certainly not bright enough or can think and imagine that even with your phony "proxies" that the earth is still coming out of the Little Ice Age or it would not have ended. When do you believe conditions were better, during the LIA or after the ice retreated and opened up land previously covered in ice? You are so naive & dumbstruck by your belief in this CO2 hoax that you will never understand the truth. Just what kind of a climate do you want, as though you have any control over it, al all, & if you did, what sacrifices would you make to achieve your utopia? I know that it would be the same type of hypocrisy that we see in other proponents of your hoax, such as Al Gore, and others who do not change one thing in their life style to change what you stupidly believe to be true.

Al Gore Leaves Car Running
http://www.newsma...EhwArsoA


http://www.time.c...5kOyyXfx

PinkElephant
3.5 / 5 (11) May 25, 2014
the actual Ice conditions in the immediate past that I presented you with
You're full of BS like that. Yes, in any given year there will be swings up and down -- in temperature, in ice cover, in precipitation, in whatever you want. The Russians have a term for ice-free areas of open water in the arctic - polynya - and that, particularly at the North Pole, would be usually caused by the wind and currents pushing the ice around (piling it up in some places, leaving open water in others.) You will cite examples of a cold snap here and there, or a warm spell here and there in the past, and *completely ignore* the *averages*. You will wax on and off about *outliers*, while remaining totally blind to the *trend*. You are a classic case study in pathological inability to see the forest for the trees.
Just what kind of a climate do you want
One that is as stable as possible, and as close as possible to the Holocene climate optimum. Look it up, if you are capable (oh, whatever)
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (10) May 25, 2014
Maggnus: Please take the time to point out what that is relevant to this conversation, or another, for that matter, in the last two post that you present when the topic is this:
"(Phys.org) —Tim Palmer, a climate scientist and professor at the University of Oxford in the U.K. has published a somewhat controversial Perspective piece in the journal Science. In it, he theorizes that heavy thunderstorms in the western tropical Pacific (due to global warming) this past winter caused changes to the flow pattern of the jet stream, which resulted in the "polar vortex" that chilled the northern part of North America for the first four months of 2014."
In what you said? Nothing.

PinkElephant
3.5 / 5 (11) May 25, 2014
what sacrifices would you make to achieve your utopia
I'd pay 5x more for electricity at home, and I'd pay 3x more for my car's fuel -- without a problem. My salary would more than allow that, and I'd suggest anyone whose salary isn't up to the task, needs to have a chat with their boss. I'd also prefer buying things made locally - because it'd be so much cheaper due to reduced transportation overhead (because of proper accounting of emissions), and I'd prefer buying things that last a long time rather than needing replacement every other month. I'd recycle much more, because it would actually be a lot more profitable for companies to use recycled materials than to extract/synthesize from scratch. I'd live closer to my work, get around more by walking and biking, and public transport; I'd move into a dwelling just big enough, with high-quality insulation and more efficient appliances... but I've already done those things. I'm also a very frugal and reluctant consumer.

You?
jdswallow
2.1 / 5 (10) May 25, 2014
PinkElephant: Not that anything that does not fit you delusional prevaricating narrative, but I lived in Alaska for 24 years and 14 of those years were above the Arctic Circle and have seen the various animals of the area while you can't even find it on a map. I know it goes beyond your poor ability to reason things out; but, why do you think that these temperatures for Alaska still stand as the all-time records?

Alaska
–80
–62
Jan. 23, 1971
Prospect Creek Camp

Alaska
100
38
June 27, 1915
Fort Yukon
http://www.infopl...html>

How about this one?
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) announced today that the record holder for the hottest temperature ever recorded on the planet had been changed. A record dating back to 1922 in El Azizia, Libya was deemed invalid and thus the honor now falls on a temperature recorded in Death Valley, California in 1913.
http://www.examin...lifornia

Notice the dates, pe?
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (10) May 25, 2014
Tony Banton (AKA, runrig):
What do you think you prove by giving his name JDspreadsBS? Everyone here knows who he is dimbulb, he told us months ago and has never hid it.
They all show a Zonal Mean of down, especially these two. Also note where the
"Note: Gray areas signify missing data." is located. It is in the colder regions, naturally.
Oh, right, the "conspiracy".
There are exactly three weather stations used by GISS that are north of 80 degrees. Alert on Ellesmere Island is one of them. One other is a Russian station on Hayes Island in the Franz Josef Archipelago & it is getting cooler in the summer. The third is Nord on northern Greenland. It is getting warmer in all seasons.
A lie. http://data.giss....ist.txt.

Gish-galloping denialist claiming conspiracy. An ignoble loon.
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (9) May 26, 2014
n a joint press conference NOAA and NASA have just released data for the global surface temperature for 2013. In summary they both show that the 'pause' in global surface temperature that began in 1997, according to some estimates, continues
A .64 dT C over the 1950 - 1981 average (where dT = change in temperature & C =Celsius) is a "pause"? Wow you are really taken in by the crap portrayed with sciency sounding words at that denialist site aren't you? Have you EVER tried to think for yourself? Rhetorical question of course.

Global population of polar bears has increased by 2,650-5,700 since 2001
When will you people ever deal with the truth?
Nice sound bite JDspreadsBS! Here is the ACTUAL truth! http://www.canadi...ears.asp

Can you deal with that?
PinkElephant
3.5 / 5 (11) May 26, 2014
why do you think that these temperatures for Alaska still stand as the all-time records...How about this one?
Oh, I don't know. Wait, could it be... because they are *outliers*? Naw it couldn't be, not possibly, not ever. 'cuz that'd mean basic fundamentals of statistics are actually worth something?

Speaking of statistics, you wouldn't have happened to look up the *trends* for record highs and record lows, would you have? No, of course not. You're incapable. Here, I'll help you once again (why I keep doing it, is really beyond me):

https://www2.ucar...cross-us

That some hi-temp records in Alaska and elsewhere haven't been broken *yet*, is a fool's comfort.

http://www.skepti...ows.html
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (10) May 26, 2014
The date was 11 August 1958 and the Skate had just become the first submarine to surface at the North Pole.
Misrepresentation; from a crew member:

"The Ice at the polar ice cap is an average of 6-8 feet thick, but with the wind and tides the ice will crack and open into large polynyas (areas of open water), these areas will refreeze over with thin ice. We had sonar equipment that would find these open or thin areas to come up through, thus limiting any damage to the submarine. The ice would also close in and cover these areas crushing together making large ice ridges both above and below the water. We came up through a very large opening in 1958 that was 1/2 mile long and 200 yards wide. The wind came up and closed the opening within 2 hours."

The truth (again, appallingly easy to find!) http://tamino.wor...mselves/
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (10) May 26, 2014
PinkElephant: Please be advised that these charts only go back to April 1979; therefore, logical people wonder what the ice was like when this happened:

AMUNDSEN EXPEDITION
1. June 16, 1903
http://www.pbs.or...-nf.html

"Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot…"
http://www.sott.n...gs-Melt-

"Not only did the Skate surface in virtually ice-free water at the North Pole, but the weather was mild enough that crewmen went out to chip a bit of ice off the sub's hull."
http://www.ihatet...ubmarine
More misrepresented quote mining, data mining and gish-gallop. "Logical people" use truth, not misrepresentations, to present evidence.
Maggnus
3.2 / 5 (9) May 26, 2014
I know that it would be the same type of hypocrisy that we see in other proponents of your hoax, such as Al Gore, and others who do not change one thing in their life style to change what you stupidly believe to be true.

Al Gore Leaves Car Running
Aww boobie doesn't like some US politician! Isn't that cute, he is a denialist because he doesn't like Al Gore and the Republican party he represents. Maybe you should try accepting the science and use your political crybabying to help the Democrats win. Or the Tea Party. Or whoever.

Denialists, so predictable. Science is against them, so it must be because US political figures say something.
RealityCheck
3.4 / 5 (10) May 26, 2014
@jdswallow.
So, RealityCheck, all that you posted above was about "weather"? You sure could have fooled me with your double talking nonsense and then you allude to the fact that anyone that gives you valid facts that contest your delusional ideas; then they are a "troll". How many senseless, say nothing about anything, post can you make in one day?
No, mate. The CONTEXT my post was made in was your and others' mistakingly using 'cold events' as 'proof' that global warming is not so. I pointed out in my example 'ice box' that even as the warming 'ice' melts in an ice box due to heat load ingress, there are 'cold spots' formed in various 'spots' depending on where the cooled air is going as it makes its way from the ice to the other contents/location in/of the ice box.

The point was: ice WARMING=cooled AIR; and 'colder winters' wherever colder AIR goes FROM the warmed ice because GW changes air flows/patterns EXTREMES.

Can you stop mercenary/political trolling/shilling now? :)
jdswallow
2 / 5 (11) May 26, 2014
Antarctica; Vanda Station, Scott Coast, Jan. 5, 1974 (59F):
South Pole, Dec. 27, 1978, (7.5F).
Highest average annual mean temperature (world): Dallol, Ethiopia (Oct. 1960 Dec. 1966), 94° F.
Longest hot spell (world): Marble Bar, W. Australia, 100° F (or above) for 162 consecutive days, Oct. 30, 1923 to Apr. 7, 1924. Notice anything regarding the dates of these records? Anyone heard of the dust bowl & wasn't that in the 30s
http://www.infopl...375.html

This link shows the same records.
http://www.worldf...emes.php

These records do change, such as in this instance.
Consequently, the WMO assessment is that the official highest recorded surface temperature of 56.7°C (134°F) was measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley), California, USA. Full details of the assessment are given in the on-line issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (http://dx.doi.org...0093.1).
http://www.wmo.in..._en.html

jdswallow
1.8 / 5 (10) May 26, 2014
You will cite examples of a cold snap here and there, or a warm spell here and there in the past, and *completely ignore* the *averages*. You will wax on and off about *outliers*, while remaining totally blind to the *trend*. You are a classic case study in pathological inability to see the forest for the trees.


PinkElephant: This is exactly what I will do. I will ask you to disprove that these are the standing high temperature records and if you can not come up with actual, factual, records that they have been broken, then I will ask you what that does to your stupid hypotheses of a planet with a fever.

What follows are world record high temperatures: World (Africa) El Azizia, Libya; Sept. 13, 1922, (136F):
North America (U.S.), Death Valley, Calif.; July 10, 1913 (134F);
Asia; Tirat Tsvi, Israel, June 21, 1942, (129F):
Australia ,Cloncurry, Queensland; Jan. 16, 1889 (128F):
Europe, Seville, Spain,Aug. 4, 1881 (122F):
South America, Rivadavia, Argentina; Dec. 11, 1905 (120F):
Canada,Midale and Yellow Grass, Saskatchewan, Canada; July 5, 1937 (113F):
Oceania;Tuguegarao, Philippines, April 29, 1912 (108F):
Persian Gulf (sea-surface): Aug. 5, 1924 (96F):

PinkElephant
3.5 / 5 (11) May 26, 2014
You really are an epic failure at math, aren't you jdswallow? Never took any statistics, at all? Never even learned to calculate averages, to say nothing of standard deviations or any such thing?

All right, if you insist on pursuing your retarded line of "reasoning", let's play that game:

http://en.wikiped...recorded

wait for it...
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (12) May 26, 2014
I will ask you to disprove that these are the standing high temperature records and if you can not come up with actual, factual, records that they have been broken, then I will ask you what that does to your stupid hypotheses of a planet with a fever
@jd hooker
I cant believe you posted such a profoundly stupid statement!
and with this comment you have shown that
1- you have NO F'ing IDEA what the word AVERAGE means
2- YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO GET AN AVERAGE
3- you are clueless as to why a RISE in AVERAGE temperatures is a bad thing
4- you have NO IDEA what climate is
5- you have no idea about how the scientific method works
6- you have no idea what you are talking about
7- you have no idea what WE are talking about
8- you are throwing SPAM out for TROLLING purposes
9- you have the IQ of a rotten carrot shoved up the rear end of a roadkill rabbit
here is a SIMPLE example:
3+7+7+7+7+7+7+7+7+7=66/10 =6.6
3+9+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5=52/10 =5.2
NOW do you get it?
now do you understand just how embarassingly stupid and profoundly idiotic your statement is?
GLOBAL temps are based upon the AVERAGE of ALL temps, so an outlier is meaningless if the AVERAGE raises due to a LARGE NUMBER OF HIGH TEMP DAYS even if those temps never break the record! FFS
PinkElephant
3.4 / 5 (10) May 26, 2014
Firstly, I do find these somewhat amusing:
this temperature of 57.8 °C (136 °F), registered on September 13, 1922, is currently considered to have been a recorder's error).[81] Christopher C. Burt, the weather historian writing for Weather Underground who shepherded the Libya reading's 2012 disqualification, believes that the 1913 Death Valley reading is "a myth", and is at least four or five degrees Fahrenheit too high,[4] as do other weather historians Dr. Arnold Court and William Taylor Reid.[82] Burt proposes that the highest reliably recorded temperature on Earth is still at Death Valley, but is instead 53.9 °C (129 °F) recorded five times: 20 July 1960, 18 July 1998, 20 July 2005, 7 July 2007, and 30 June 2013.
On 16 January 1889, a temperature of 53 °C (128 °F) was recorded at Cloncurry, Queensland. It was measured with a non-standard thermometer, so it is unknown if this reading was valid or not.
But wait, there's more...
PinkElephant
3.5 / 5 (11) May 26, 2014
So how about these outliers over here:
Greenland 25.9 °C (78.6 °F) Maniitsoq 2013-07-30
Japan 41.0 °C (105.8 °F) Shimanto, Kōchi 2013-08-12
Austria 40.5 °C (104.9 °F) Bad Deutsch-Altenburg 2013-08-08
Slovenia 40.8 °C (105.4 °F) Cerklje ob Krki 2013-08-08
Germany 40.2 °C (104.4 °F) Gärmersdorf bei Amberg / Karlsruhe / March (Breisgau) / Freiburg 1983-07-27 / 2003-08-09 / 2003-08-13 / 2013-07-27
Morocco 49.6 °C (121.3 °F) Marrakech 2012-07-17
Kuwait 53.6 °C (128.5 °F) Sulaibya 2012-07-31
Czech Republic 40.4 °C (104.7 °F) Dobřichovice, Prague-West District 2012-08-20
Moldova 42.4 °C(108.3 °F) Falesti 2012-08-07
Montenegro 44.8 °C (112.6 °F) Podgorica & Danilovgrad 2007-08-16 & 2012-08-08
Iraq 53.0 °C (127.4 °F) Ali Air Base, Nasiriyah 2011-08-03
South Pole −12.3 °C (9.9 °F) Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station 2011-12-25
I *could* go on... but golly gee willikers, don't you notice something about them thar dates? I mean, wowzers! Yowza! Auuuuuga! Hubba-hubba! Wheeeee-whoooieeee!
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (11) May 26, 2014
PinkElephant: This is exactly what I will do. I will ask you to disprove that these are the standing high temperature records and if you can not come up with actual, factual, records that they have been broken, then I will ask you what that does to your stupid hypotheses of a planet with a fever.

What follows are world record high temperatures: World (Africa) El Azizia, Libya; Sept. 13, 1922, (136F):
North America (U.S.), Death Valley, Calif.; July 10, 1913 (134F);
Asia; Tirat Tsvi, Israel, June 21, 1942, (129F):
Australia ,Cloncurry, Queensland; Jan. 16, 1889 (128F):
Europe, Seville, Spain,Aug. 4, 1881 (122F):
South America, Rivadavia, Argentina; Dec. 11, 1905 (120F):
Canada,Midale and Yellow Grass, Saskatchewan, Canada; July 5, 1937 (113F):
Oceania;Tuguegarao, Philippines, April 29, 1912 (108F):
Persian Gulf (sea-surface): Aug. 5, 1924 (96F):
Cherry picking at its finest!
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (10) May 26, 2014
Which comments would those be?
You know, where they say that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will result in a greenhouse effect, causing the planet to warm. Have you come out of a coma recently?
The ones were the scientists advocate that their study is the correct measure?
Maybe, hard to tell what you're trying to ask here
And when you say climate change is the reason, what exactly is the mechanism of implementation?
That's that "adding CO2" part again.
To simply say that it is climate change and leave it at that is the same as publishing one of these ridiculous studies that refuse to analyze the actual underlying CAUSE of climate change and simply imply it is of human origins.
Oh you mean the "cause" as in adding giga-tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere thus increasing its greenhouse effect, thereby warming the climate and triggering climate change? Yea, seems to make sense.
jdswallow
2.2 / 5 (10) May 26, 2014
Ocean acidification is a fact, and "runs counter" nothing

What are you using p.e., for a base line for your conjecture?
"The concept of p[H] was first introduced by Danish chemist Søren Peder Lauritz Sørensen at the Carlsberg Laboratory in 1909 and revised to the modern pH in 1924 to accommodate definitions and measurements in terms of electrochemical cells."
http://en.wikiped...#History

Ocean Acidification can never occur because of the buffering action of calcium carbonate. Our oceans are solidly basic with a pH of about 8.0 that varies a little depending mostly on ocean temperature. Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide will only decrease alkalinity (pH) a tiny amount, far less than natural variations.

You also seem to be forgetting this in your groundless conjecture & you do not know that this circulation takes up to 1,000 yrs. to be completed.

"Thermohaline circulation behaves like a conveyor belt. Originating in the Northern Atlantic Ocean, cold, dense water sinks to the deep ocean. These waters travel across ocean basins to the tropics where they warm and upwell to the surface. The warmer, less dense, tropical waters are then drawn to polar latitudes to replace the cold sinking water."
http://centerforo...ulation/

jdswallow
2.2 / 5 (10) May 26, 2014
I *could* go on... but golly gee willikers, don't you notice something about them thar dates? I mean, wowzers! Yowza! Auuuuuga! Hubba-hubba! Wheeeee-whoooieeee!

PinkElephant: And go on you will, but where are the NEW world records for HOT in your planet with a fever, at least in your poor delusional mind that cannot grapple with reality? Also notice that this is as "global" as one can get. I do not see any temperature even close to "the WMO assessment is that the official highest recorded surface temperature of 56.7°C (134°F) was measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley), California, USA." & you did not find any either but come up with your typical bunch of BS to prove just how disingenuous and dishonest you people can be. In that, you are consistent. I recall during the summer of 2012 in the U.S. you fools were standing by the, what had to be guarded thermometers in Death Valley, just knowing that the record would be broken; but, it was not!
PinkElephant
3.4 / 5 (10) May 26, 2014
Ocean Acidification can never occur ... far less than natural variations.
Never let the facts stop you:

http://en.wikiped...fication

A few brief excerpts:
Since the industrial revolution began, it is estimated that surface ocean pH has dropped by slightly more than 0.1 units on the logarithmic scale of pH, representing about a 29% increase in H+. It is expected to drop by a further 0.3 to 0.5 pH units[9] (an additional doubling to tripling of today's post-industrial acid concentrations) by 2100...
In the 15-year period 1995–2010 alone, acidity has increased 6 percent in the upper 100 meters of the Pacific Ocean from Hawaii to Alaska.[39]...
surface waters are changing much more rapidly than initial calculations have suggested....
A 2013 study claimed acidity was increasing at a rate 10 times faster than in any of the evolutionary crises in the earth's history.
Head firmly planted in sand, you heroically strive on...
PinkElephant
3.4 / 5 (10) May 26, 2014
You also seem to be forgetting this in your groundless conjecture & you do not know that this circulation takes up to 1,000 yrs. to be completed.
And what "groundless" "conjecture" are you on about now? Are there some more facts you'd like to deny? Do go on...
but where are the NEW world records for HOT
You aren't just dumb, you're also apparently blind. What, 2013, 2012, and 2011 aren't "NEW" enough for you? You want something from 3 nanoseconds ago, or something? Or something from the future, maybe?
I do not see any temperature even close to "the WMO assessment is that the official highest recorded surface temperature of 56.7°C (134°F) was measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley), California, USA."
Definitely blind. Go above and re-read the excerpt I quoted for you regarding that particular alleged 'record'. Of course, even if it weren't a bad reading (hah!), it wouldn't mean jack shit. You still fail the bar on outliers vs. trends.
Caliban
3.5 / 5 (11) May 27, 2014
I *could* go on... but golly gee willikers, don't you notice something about them thar dates? I mean, wowzers! Yowza! Auuuuuga! Hubba-hubba! Wheeeee-whoooieeee!

PinkElephant: And go on you will, but where are the NEW world records for HOT in your planet with a fever, at least in your poor delusional mind that cannot grapple with reality? Also notice that this is as "global" as one can get. I do not see any temperature even close to "the WMO assessment is that the official highest recorded surface temperature of 56.7°C (134°F) was measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley), California, USA."


J' swallow- so you're not just a lying moron, but a stupid lying moron, as well.

That same list shows another record, of ~131F in the 1930s. Thay blows one hole in your trollblat. Additionally, if you look at the dates for the records listed, you will see that the VAST MAJORITY of them have occured since 1998. second hole in trollblat.

STFU, already.

RhoidSlayer
1.9 / 5 (9) May 27, 2014
re:sobering warnings of greenhouse runaway

point 1: if positive runaway was possible at this orbit , we should have venus'd during the initial emergence of anaerobic biomass .

point 2: if the majority of earths history is greenhouse , fighting to maintain icehouse is folly .

question - is natural co2 a cause or effect of higher global temperature ?

question - does burning heating oil to try and keep warm , have the side effect of raising co2 levels so you don't have to burn as much ?

question - does global warming increase precipitation resulting in more fresh water and increased crop growth ?

what you know , what you value , what price you'll pay and it's corollary - who you can blame and get to foot the bill .
howhot2
3.8 / 5 (10) May 27, 2014
J' swallow- so you're not just a lying moron, but a stupid lying moron, as well.

That same list shows another record, of ~131F in the 1930s. Thay blows one hole in your trollblat. Additionally, if you look at the dates for the records listed, you will see that the VAST MAJORITY of them have occured since 1998. second hole in trollblat.


I'll second that. Most of what the nimrod swallow's said is mis-direction anyway. Anything to avoid the subject and counter argue with factlets that don't apply. In 1978 the Ohio river froze over and you could drive a car across it. If that was now, do you think people would say it was due to global warming? This year, the Ohio river didn't freeze, however the Great Lakes did! It took tell May to un-thaw them. It's been considered unusual.

Those two events where caused by the shifting jet stream patterns during an above average temperature winter! Crazy isn't it? Jan, Feb and March all where at or above normal. It's AGW.

howhot2
3.8 / 5 (10) May 27, 2014
Answer 1: "is natural co2 a cause or effect of higher global temperature ?" The cause. Natural CO2 is like Natural H2O. It's all Natural in the scheme of things. But if you wording is a mistake, and you are asking "Does CO2 cause higher global temperatures?" The answer is yes.
Answer 2: "does burning heating oil to try and keep warm , have the side effect of raising co2 levels so you don't have to burn as much ?" Haha. Funny question. No. Cold is a human condition. If your cold, your cold and increasing CO2 levels isn't going to help that.
Answer 3: "does global warming increase precipitation resulting in more fresh water and increased crop growth ?" Yes. 2/3 of Earth is covered by oceans, and it's logical as global temperatures increase, more water will evaporate, condense and fall as fresh water rain. That doesn't necessarily mean that increase crop growth will the result. Higher global temps result in higher lofting clouds that create less rain, but big superstorms.
runrig
3.7 / 5 (9) May 27, 2014
J' swallow- so you're not just a lying moron, but a stupid lying moron, as well.

Exactly Caliban.
And why i no longer converse with this person.
It is Mr Twain's quote personified.
And the D-K syndrome, gone wild.
Now these two traits are common on here, but combined is with his rabid spamming (often with over 1000 chars - yes I check regularly) - he/she/it patently has no regard for site rules.
I think those neutrals on here get his message (and it's the opposite of what is wanted).
Just shoot down the once then don't feed it.

Having said that, well done anyway.
And no, mr swallow I just pass your posts by now, so any reference to me will not be read. Though I note others do and take up my defence (thanks).
Do have a nice life my friend.
I envy you in a way - the ability to bend the world to fit your conception. Must be comforting. Nothing can intrude. Nothing nasty like reality, and problems that need fixing. Oh and some of your tax Dollars.
Ah diddums.
FFS
RhoidSlayer
3 / 5 (8) May 27, 2014
Answer 1: The cause. Natural CO2 is like Natural H2O. It's all Natural in the scheme of things. But if you wording is a mistake, and you are asking "Does CO2 cause higher global temperatures?" The answer is yes.

Natural , as opposed to man made .
not the common "Co2 causes higher temperatures" , but that higher temperatures result in more Co2 due to higher biocycle energy utilization . whats the temperature relationship on the anaerobic vs aerobic gas production curve .

Answer 2: Haha. Funny question. No. Cold is a human condition. If your cold, your cold and increasing CO2 levels isn't going to help that.

I didn't say anything about cold , and did you really think I meant one persons heating Co2 output was going to change even local climate ?
I should have used 'temperature' instead , and used 'in the aggregate' like SCOTUS

what I said vs what I meant is on me , what you heard vs what I said is on you
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) May 27, 2014
Why do AGWites pay attention to one scientist?
They claim only to accept 'the consensus'.
Caliban
3.8 / 5 (10) May 27, 2014
Why do AGWites pay attention to one scientist?
They claim only to accept 'the consensus'.


Why does rygsuckn' only pay attention to _any_ scientist(s) which question the consensus?
Rygsuckn' only accepts mad, flawed, or fraud.

And if he can't find any ready-to-hand, he'll make some up, quick, out of whole cloth, or go down the mineshaft to dig up a fresh load of Fool's Gold From the Vault of Irrelevant Inanity.
PinkElephant
4.2 / 5 (10) May 27, 2014
@RhoidSlayer,
if positive runaway was possible at this orbit
Not too many people are worried about that one (at least not for another ~500 million years). Straw man.
if the majority of earths history is greenhouse
How many extant species and ecosystems, including our own species, are optimally adapted to the greenhouse?
is natural co2 a cause or effect of higher global temperature
It can be either, just as moisture can be both a source and consequence of precipitation. A greenhouse gas, is a greenhouse gas, and it does what a greenhouse gas does.
burning heating oil ... so you don't have to burn as much
Like smoking, so you don't have to drink as much...
does global warming increase precipitation
It does. It also increases evaporation in equal measure. And it has an unfortunate tendency of changing snow to rain, and of eroding/destroying mountain glaciers. Not exactly conducive to either agriculture in particular or water resource management in general...
jdswallow
2 / 5 (8) May 27, 2014
Then we have Dr. John Christy:
"Ph.D., Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, 1987 M.S., Atmospheric Sciences, , University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, 1984; B.A., Mathematics, California State University, Fresno, 1969" and also
"Richard Lindzen who is a Harvard-trained atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 books and scientific papers. He has been a critic of some anthropogenic global warming theories and the alleged political pressures on climate scientists" You alarmist don't seem to like DR. Roy Spencer much either, do you? "Spencer received a B.S. in atmospheric sciences from the University of Michigan in 1978 and his M.S. and Ph.D. in meteorology from the University of Wisconsin–Madison in 1980 and 1982.
Spencer joined NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center as a visiting scientist in 1984, where he later became Senior Scientist for Climate Studies. Spencer is currently the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite, a position he has held since 1994.
jdswallow
1.9 / 5 (9) May 27, 2014
"The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said.

This is the education that Steve Running used to gain his share of the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore and then they criticize someone like Dr. John Christy because he shows how flawed their contentions are. This may be a shock to some that worship at this cathedral of their religion, global warming, but Al Gore has no scientific credentials and Steve Running, who holds a "B.S. in Botany; Oregon State University, Corvallis, 1972, M.S. in Forest Management; Oregon State University, Corvallis, 1973 and a Ph.D. in Forest Ecophysiology; Colorado State University, Fort Collins, 1979.
"Plant ecophysiology is an experimental science that seeks to describe the physiological mechanisms underlying ecological observations." At least he has been exposed to science but is a long ways from being a climatologist, but then again, how much difference do credentials make when the head of the IPCC is an economist?

I'm sure MR Stumpy that you will tell me who in your alarmist camp has ever won a Nobel Prize in science because I know of none.
jdswallow
1.9 / 5 (9) May 27, 2014

1- you have NO F'ing IDEA what the word AVERAGE means
2- YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO GET AN AVERAGE
3- you are clueless as to why a RISE in AVERAGE temperatures is a bad thing
4- you have NO IDEA what climate is
5- you have no idea about how the scientific method works
6- you have no idea what you are talking about
7- you have no idea what WE are talking about
8- you are throwing SPAM out for TROLLING purposes
9- you have the IQ of a rotten carrot shoved up the rear end of a roadkill rabbit
here is a SIMPLE example:
3+7+7+7+7+7+7+7+7+7=66/10 =6.6
3+9+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5=52/10 =5.2
NOW do you get it?
now do you understand just how embarassingly stupid and profoundly idiotic your statement is?
GLOBAL temps are based upon the AVERAGE of ALL temps, so an outlier is meaningless if the AVERAGE raises due to a LARGE NUMBER OF HIGH TEMP DAYS even if those temps never break the record! FFS


Once more, MR. Stumpy, I must thank you for giving the alarmist view of this topic and you, without a doubt , are a typical alarmist and therefore should be seen as their spokesman with your logic and also your ability to well articulate & explain the subject. You can expand some of that tremendous knowledge you have by looking at the graphs at this site:
"The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down. - See more at:" http://www.dailyt...44c.dpuf

We Skeptics have some good people in our corner, such as James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his "Gaia" theory of the Earth as a single organism who has admitted to being "alarmist" about climate change but after a careful review now says this. "The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened,"
jdswallow
1.9 / 5 (9) May 27, 2014


PinkElephant: And go on you will, but where are the NEW world records for HOT in your planet with a fever, at least in your poor delusional mind that cannot grapple with reality? Also notice that this is as "global" as one can get. I do not see any temperature even close to "the WMO assessment is that the official highest recorded surface temperature of 56.7°C (134°F) was measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley), California, USA."

J' swallow- so you're not just a lying moron, but a stupid lying moron, as well.

That same list shows another record, of ~131F in the 1930s. Thay blows one hole in your trollblat. Additionally, if you look at the dates for the records listed, you will see that the VAST MAJORITY of them have occured since 1998. second hole in trollblat.

STFU, already.


Caliban: Am I to presume that you are not "not just a lying moron, but a stupid lying moron, as well." when you demonstrate that you do not have the intelligence to go to the sites that I GIVE LINKS for and take this issue that seems to have you so agitated up with them? That would be too much to ask from someone so stupid that they believe that a trace gas, CO2, that is now 400ppm drives the climate. Let me put that into perspective for you and any of the other fools on here not able to visualize it properly but one ppm is the same as one inch in sixteen miles, or one minute in the number of minutes in two years. You have no idea that water in the atmosphere is responsible for up to 99% of the green house affect, as Tyndall suggested 155 years ago; but you have never heard of and then you call someone a moron.


On 13 September 1922, a temperature of 58°C (136.4°F) was purportedly recorded at El Azizia (approximately 40 km south-southwest of Tripoli) in what is now modern-day Libya.

The WMO assessment is that the highest recorded surface temperature of 56.7°C (134°F) was measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley), California.
http://journals.a...-00093.1
Caliban
3.8 / 5 (10) May 27, 2014
j'swallow,

Flooding this site with over-the-character-limit, irrelevant, fraudulent, bogus, out-of-context, cherry-picked, debunked pseudoscience doesn't in any way support your Denialstance, --much less to prove you correct. Time'n'time'n'time'n'time'n'timr'n'time'n again, you've been picked off, shot down, and left without any legitimate ground to stand upon....

No, all you are doing is making yourself appear ever more shrill and desperate.

Have you no shame?
jdswallow
2.8 / 5 (9) May 27, 2014
Ocean Acidification can never occur ... far less than natural variations.
Never let the facts stop you:

PinkElephant: So you use Wikipedia the same as Tony Banton does for a scientific site, and it shows?

"Good research and citing your sources
Articles written out of thin air may be better than nothing, but they are hard to verify, which is an important part of building a trusted reference work. Please research with the best sources available and cite them properly. Doing this, along with not copying text, will help avoid any possibility of plagiarism. We welcome good short articles, called "stubs", that can serve as launching pads from which others can take off – stubs can be relatively short, a few sentences, but should provide some useful information. If you do not have enough material to write a good stub, you probably should not create an article. At the end of a stub, you should include a "stub template" like this: {{stub}}. (Other Wikipedians will appreciate it if you use a more specific stub template, like {{art-stub}}. See the list of stub types for a list of all specific stub templates.) Stubs help track articles that need expansion"
http://en.wikiped..._article

This site is better than Wikipedia if you strive for something you have no use for, the truth:
http://www.seafri...acid.htm

Caliban
3.8 / 5 (10) May 27, 2014


Ocean Acidification can never occur ... far less than natural variations. Never let the facts stop you:

PinkElephant: So you use Wikipedia the same as Tony Banton does for a scientific site, and it shows?

"Good research and citing your sources
Articles written out of thin air may be better than nothing, but they are hard to verify, which is an important part of building a trusted reference work. Please research with the best sources available and cite them properly. Doing this, along with not copying text, will help avoid any possibility of plagiarism. We welcome good short articles, called "stubs", that can serve as launching pads from which others can take off – stubs can be relatively short, a few sent[...]


Your stupidiosity is so inconceivably egregious, that I accidentally 5ranked your moronic post.

Just so you don't make the mistake of thinking that it contained even a single grain of merit.

Wanker.
jdswallow
1.9 / 5 (9) May 27, 2014
Then we have some fools thinking that ethanol and bio diesel is the answer. I'm sure of that "green energy" some people want to believe is the salvation of the planet is as much of a waste of resources as windmills and solar.
"Science News
... from universities, journals, and other research organizations
Study: Ethanol Production Consumes Six Units Of Energy To Produce Just One"
http://www.scienc...2436.htm

One 42-gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline. The rest (over half) is used to make things like: "
http://www.ranken...leum.htm

"Military leaders like to say that their aircraft, ships and personnel can't tell the difference between petroleum and biofuel. But their budgets can.

The service in 2009 spent $8.5 million for 20,000 gallons of algae-based fuel. That works out to $425 per gallon. In the fall of that year, the Defense Logistics Agency paid Montana's Sustainable Oils $2.7 million for 40,000 gallons of fuel from the camellia plant. That's about $67.50 per gallon."
jdswallow
1.9 / 5 (9) May 27, 2014
There are well over 2 billion people who have no choice in the matter that you take for granted that has been given to you on the back of fossil fuels or you to would be doing this below and I wish you had to, maybe it would wake you up, but I doubt it.

"Congo Gorilla Killings Fueled by Illegal Charcoal Trade
http://news.natio...ngo.html

Some more species facing extinction, basically because of you.

In 2007 I spent 6 weeks in Sabah and Sarawak on the island of Borneo and what is being done to the old growth rain forest on this third largest island on earth is sickening. It is being cut and destroyed and replaced with palm oil plantations that can be used for bio-fuel production and with the rain forest goes the habitat for the orangutan, the pygmy elephant, the rhinoceros and also the proboscis monkeys plus the unique plant life that occurs nowhere else on earth. This is just another area where this green revolution destroys rather than saves but the naive "greens" of the world can pat themselves on the back for "saving the planet". A side note, as with ethanol, it takes more energy to produce this biodiesel than what is derived from the use of it.
jdswallow
1.8 / 5 (10) May 27, 2014
what sacrifices would you make to achieve your utopia
I'd pay 5x more for electricity at home, and I'd pay 3x more for my car's fuel -- without a problem. My salary would more than allow that, and I'd suggest anyone whose salary isn't up to the task, needs to have a chat with their boss. but I've already done those things. I'm also a very frugal and reluctant consumer.

You?


PinkElephant: So "..pay 5x more for electricity at home, and I'd pay 3x more for my car's fuel" but to what end?

It is really a total shame that some of you fools do not live in India where this happened.
"Part of the problem is access; more than 300 million people in India still have no electricity."
[…]
"India depends on coal for more than half of its power generation, but production has barely increased, with some power plants idled for lack of coal." "In Lucknow, capital of India's most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, Dr. Sachendra Raj said his private hospital was using two large rented generators to power air-conditioners and dialysis machines."
"It's a very common problem," he said of power failures. "It's part and parcel of our daily life." (It will also become the norm in US under the current approach to electricity and how it is produced)
http://www.nytime...r=1&
Caliban
3.8 / 5 (10) May 27, 2014
j'swallow,

I repeat:

Flooding this site with over-the-character-limit, irrelevant, fraudulent, bogus, out-of-context, cherry-picked, debunked pseudoscience doesn't in any way support your Denialstance, --much less to prove you correct. Time'n'time'n'time'n'time'n'timr'n'time'n again, you've been picked off, shot down, and left without any legitimate ground to stand upon....

No, all you are doing is making yourself appear ever more shrill and desperate.

Have you no shame?

jdswallow
1.8 / 5 (10) May 27, 2014


Your stupidiosity is so inconceivably egregious, that I accidentally 5ranked your moronic post.

Just so you don't make the mistake of thinking that it contained even a single grain of merit.

Wanker.


Caliban: Thank you for being so clear and concise to allow one to have no question about which site you are carrying on about. Was it the one about Wikipedia or the one about acidification? You probably haven't been able to figure that out for yourself yet, have you? You show just how much interest and knowledge you have about this topic because you NEVER present any facts, such as in this instance, but only foaming at the mouth, stupid nonsense and one is lead to believe that is because that is all you are capable of doing. Prove otherwise sometime and at least comment on what you believe is not "even a single grain of merit." To further prove and show your mentality, throw in some more name calling. With you around, having such a big mouth, no one around you needs to be a Wanker and that makes any friends that may be unfortunate enough to know you, happy.

jdswallow
1.8 / 5 (10) May 27, 2014
Caliban: "Time'n'time'n'time'n'time'n'timr'n'time'n again, you've been picked off, shot down, and left without any legitimate ground to stand upon...." BUT Caliban, by whom? It sure wasn't by someone like you who can only offer up offensive post with NO information, but that is the way with you anthropogenic global warming idiots, isn't it?

"No, all you are doing is making yourself appear ever more shrill and desperate." How long did it take for you to dream up that one,Caliban? Have you never though that if you put some time into researching this issue out you may not sound so damn stupid?

"Have you no shame?" is a question for you to answer.
jdswallow
1.9 / 5 (9) May 27, 2014
Pink Elephant: Not that facts mean too much to you, but this is the link to information about how our military is squandering my tax dollars on this kind of stupid nonsense.

"The service in 2009 spent $8.5 million for 20,000 gallons of algae-based fuel. That works out to $425 per gallon. In the fall of that year, the Defense Logistics Agency paid Montana's Sustainable Oils $2.7 million for 40,000 gallons of fuel from the camellia plant. That's about $67.50 per gallon."
http://www.nation...ces.aspx
howhot2
3.8 / 5 (10) May 27, 2014
Mr swallowed man claimed to have known something about weather sometime. But now all he seems to post is the noise of the "shrill and the desperate". So far all you say is superficial BS. Maybe that is your point, to stop the free discussion and free exchange of ideas among scientists and "the nerds" about global warming and cause a discussion board "FOOD FIGHT!" The problem is global warming is looking so bad, it's not even worth a joke. However, giving your motivations let me quote Hunter S. Thompson; "In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity." That seems about right for you and your rightwing butdies.
jdswallow
1.8 / 5 (10) May 27, 2014
However, giving your motivations let me quote Hunter S. Thompson; "In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity."


howhot2: Take a look at this and then repeat your stupid comment; "The problem is global warming is looking so bad, it's not even worth a joke."

"ANTARCTICA: NO WARMING SINCE 1979
http://vortex.nss..._5.6.txt

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Station Data: Amundsen-Scot (90.0 S,0.0 E)
http://data.giss....mp;ds=12

THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office, but said it would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" to break the long-term global warming trend.
http://www.theaus...off-limi
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) May 28, 2014
the alarmist view of this topic
@jdhooker
wait... being able to do math is the alarmist view? MY POINT the post was to show you ONE THING: how your idiotic and blatantly stupid clinging to SINGLE high temps is completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.
LOGIC states that, even if you have an outlier temp, if ALL the temp's in an area are generally HIGHER than previous norm's, then the OVERALL average temp will also increase. Then I proved that with a SIMPLE math model that I THOUGHT you could follow... I guess I was wrong.
as for your "anecdotal evidence" of cooling temps: http://www.skepti...php?g=47
you should have watched the video here: https://www.youtu...m9JAdfcs

P.S. YOU are NOT a skeptic: you are a PSEUDOSCIENCE SPAMMING TROLL
Caliban
4.4 / 5 (7) May 28, 2014
However, giving your motivations let me quote Hunter S. Thompson; "In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity."

howhot2: Take a look at this and then repeat your stupid comment; "The problem is global warming is looking so bad, it's not even worth a joke."

"ANTARCTICA: NO WARMING SINCE 1979
http://vortex.nss..._5.6.txt


Moron. Your vaunted link shows positive warming trend across the board.

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Station Data: Amundsen-Scot (90.0 S,0.0 E)
http://data.giss....mp;ds=12


At the south pole? Several thousand feet above sea level? Moron.

THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause


Moron. There is no pause. The trend remains positive, as you would know if you understood the data being presented in your first link.

That's a double-fail, for you, j' swallow, moron troll.
jdswallow
1.5 / 5 (8) May 29, 2014


THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause


Moron. There is no pause. The trend remains positive, as you would know if you understood the data being presented in your first link.


Caliban: You need something other than a spare set of false teeth in case you lose the one set while helping out the friends, you also need to replace your glasses because you either can' read graphs or, the most likely case, are too stupid to know what you are looking at, because this NASA graph shows very clearly that the temperature peak in 1957 was higher by several tens of degrees than the current readings.

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Station Data: Amundsen-Scot (90.0 S,0.0 E)
http://data.giss....mp;ds=12

It is consistent with the alarmist mentality that they believe that their obvious shortcomings and lack of knowledge on this subject gives them license to call people "morons" when it is obvious to everyone who the morons are.
jdswallow
1.5 / 5 (8) May 29, 2014
you are a PSEUDOSCIENCE SPAMMING TROLL


Mr. Stumpy, I'm sure that you have not the mental capacity to understand that even your bogus site's graph shows a warming of about .2 degree since 1970 and most knowledgeable folks would understand that is consistent with an earth still coming out of a Little Ice Age that you cannot explain how that happened any more than you can explain the RWP or the MWP that are historically recorded climatic events.

Take some time and explain how what I show you in these two links that happened and then call me some more names because that is all you have in your grab bag of ignorance and stupidity to share with the general public because it sure is not FACTS.

I have had my own boat up into glacier bay on a couple of occasions and what follows applies to your, I assume, dire warnings regarding melting glaciers.
http://soundwaves...ymap.gif

By 1879, however, naturalist John Muir discovered that the ice had retreated more than 30 miles forming an actual bay. By 1916, the Grand Pacific Glacier – the main glacier credited with carving the bay – had melted back 60 miles to the head of what is now Tarr Inlet. http://www.glacie...phy.html

jdswallow
1.5 / 5 (8) May 29, 2014
What do you think you prove by giving his name JDspreadsBS? Everyone here knows who he is dimbulb, he told us months ago and has never hid it.


Maggnus: Please explain, since the above is the only true thing you have ever stated, why you feel it is necessary to bring it up?

Caliban
4.4 / 5 (7) May 29, 2014
Caliban: You need something other than a spare set of false teeth in case you lose the one set while helping out the friends,


WTF? Is that supposed to mean something?

you also need to replace your glasses because you either can' read graphs or, the most likely case, are too stupid to know what you are looking [...]NASA graph shows very clearly that the temperature peak in 1957 was higher by several tens of degrees [...]


Uh, hate to break it to you, moron -I mean j' swallow- But your graph shows a peak in the __LATE 70s__ of ~5C over average. You " can' " read, yes?

GISS Surface Temperature AnalysisStation Data: Amundsen-Scot (90.0 S,0.0 E)

It is consistent with the alarmist mentality that they believe that their obvious shortcomings and lack of knowledge on this subject gives them license to call people "morons" when it is obvious to everyone who the morons are.


No, your repeated demonstrations of stupidity grants me that license, "moron".

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) May 30, 2014
I'm sure that you have not the mental capacity to understand
@jdhooker the illiterate
personal conjecture and argument based upon stupidity and inability to do grade-school math
bogus site's graph
personal conjecture, FUD and blatant stupidity due to illiteracy (see studies/links)
most knowledgeable folks would understand that is consistent with an earth still coming out of a Little Ice Age
fallacy. most knowledgeable folk comprehend the science. also attempted redirection due to blatant mathematics stupidity
Take some time and explain how what I show you in these two links
1- attempted redirection
2- given your lack of ability to comprehend the links I've left and your baltantly ignoring empirical data, as well as your poor math skills, then it is pointless whether I explain as you are not likely to comprehend, and as it is not consistent with your faith/belief system which undermines your inability to accept the science above and creates a false world of delusions that you exist in which will not allow you to see reality for what it is.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 30, 2014
and then call me some more names
@jdhooker
I am providing others an assessment of your abilities as well as defining you: you believe in pseudoscience (a theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation but may SOUND scientific-at least to you or the ignorant)
You are Trolling: your comments are designed to elicit a response and provide no relevant NOR scientific basis for logical discussion. Your inability to accept studies/links/proof as well as comprehend scientific data (see https://www.youtu...m9JAdfcs as well as your inability to comprehend math and averages) means that you are here to sow FUD and create a hostile as well as fallacious environment by continually posting (which is spamming) the same crap over and over which proves nothing, may be irrelevant, and likely speaks only to your state of mind and delusions.

This supports my comments calling you a pseudoscience spamming troll.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) May 30, 2014
share with the general public because it sure is not FACTS
@jdhooker
and to conclude this discussion with you:
GIVEN your comment
the alarmist view of this topic
when discussing averages AND
GIVEN that you have yet to address the facts in the links I did post AND
GIVEN that you cannot address the other scientific facts that have also been addressed to you AND
GIVEN that you continually re-post the same BS over and over as some delusional proof that I/we/science does not understand what is going on AND
GIVEN that you've yet to prove or provide empirical data supporting the misrepresented claims and misunderstood conclusions that you've drawn from articles AND
GIVEN that you are more willing to believe a blog than a study
THEN we can prove by reviewing your posts that I have given a pretty accurate description of you as well as provided others with the ability to see how a pseudoscience troll spreads disinformation, blatant lies and stupidity on the internet and specifically here in the comments
JD= pseudoscience spamming troll

jdswallow
1.5 / 5 (8) May 30, 2014
The expedition is being led by Chris Turney, "climate scientist", who has "set up a carbon refining company called Carbonscape which has developed technology to fix carbon from the atmosphere and make a host of green bi-products, helping reduce greenhouse gas levels."
http://www.thegwp...tic-ice/

A Russian vessel is stranded in ice off the coast of Antarctica with 74 people onboard, including the scientific team recreating explorer Douglas Mawson's Australasian Antarctic Expedition from a century ago.
Had the ship carrying the trio of explorers in 1912, the Aurora, gotten icebound the same way the M.V. Akademik Shokalskiy did, there would have been no rescue option and certain death.
http://news.natio...tl_ot_w#

New Record for Coldest Place on Earth, in Antarctica
http://news.natio...science/
jdswallow
1.5 / 5 (8) May 30, 2014
Since you do not have the interest in this to look anything up:

Eighty three years ago today, Mawson was sailing along the Antarctic coast. In 2013, global warming nutcases trying to retrace Mawson's route are hoping an icebreaker comes and saves them.
http://query.nyti...448385F9

Antarctic trap: Stranded ship awaiting Australian rescue after Chinese, French turn away
http://rt.com/new...cue-935/

HOW NSIDC GOT ITS FIGURES WRONG AND THEN KEPT QUIET
… the NASA-funded National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) - was discovered to have made a huge error and then quietly corrected the figure without mentioning it.
On September 4, NSIDC, based at the University of Colorado, stated on its website that in August 2013 the Arctic ice cover recovered by a record 2.38 million sq km – 919,000 sq miles – from its 2012 low.
But on September 10, the NSIDC quietly changed it to 1.38 million sq km (533,000 sq miles) – and replaced the original document so the old figure no longer shows up on a main Google search. It can now only be found on an old 'cached' page.
http://www.dailym...oulajH00
jdswallow
1.6 / 5 (7) May 30, 2014
Caliban: You need something other than a spare set of false teeth in case you lose the one set while helping out the friends,


WTF? Is that supposed to mean something?

you also need to replace your glasses because you either can' read graphs or, the most likely case, are too stupid to know what you are looking [...]NASA graph shows very clearly that the temperature peak in 1957 was higher by several tens of degrees [...]


Uh, hate to break it to you, moron -I mean j' swallow- But your graph shows a peak in the __LATE 70s__ of ~5C over average. You " can' " read, yes?

GISS Surface Temperature AnalysisStation Data: Amundsen-Scot (90.0 S,0.0 E)

It is consistent with the alarmist mentality that they believe that their obvious shortcomings and lack of knowledge on this subject gives them license to call people "morons" when it is obvious to everyone who the morons are.



Caliban: The highest temperature, according to the chart that you cannot read, occurred in 1978 & was -44.8 while the lowest temperature, -50.5 occurred on 1989 & all of the other lowest temperatures have been from that year on to the present and that is consistent with what the earth's temperatures, in general, have done. It is not new glasses that you need but the intelligence to know that when dealing with minus temperatures, be it Fahrenheit or Celsius, the greater the # with the - before it, then the colder it is. For you I give this example; -46 is colder than -45. Got that?
When your friends come calling you can enlighten them by telling them that the only place where F & C are = is -40

I doubt that you are even looking at the right graph from what you are trying to tell me.
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Station Data: Amundsen-Scot (90.0 S,0.0 E)
http://data.giss....mp;ds=12

May 17, 2014
Antarctic Sea Ice Extent is 1,202,000 sq km above the 1981-2010 mean. That is the 69th daily record of 2014.
http://sunshineho...-normal/



jdswallow
1.5 / 5 (8) May 30, 2014
and to conclude this discussion with you.

Mr. Stumpy: If you are directing your post at me, save your time. I do not read them because they contain NOTHING of interest or that one could possibly learn anything from.



Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) May 30, 2014
New Record for Coldest Place on Earth, in Antarctica
http://news.natio...science/
Exactly what is expected, for two reasons. First, it's cold in Antarctica, and only in the last few decades have temperatures in the remotest parts of this continent been measurable. There are going to be "new records" purely as a result of statistical flukes that arise from weather. Secondly, the combination of highly concentrated O3 in the upper atmosphere and the increasing windspeeds of the southern circumpolar winds due to global warming, means that temperatures will fall over the middle continental land mass in the short term.

So yes, denier, the record cold in Antarctica is actually a sign of global warming, not evidence against it.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) May 30, 2014
A Russian vessel is stranded in ice off the coast of Antarctica with 74 people onboard, including the scientific team recreating explorer Douglas Mawson's Australasian Antarctic Expedition from a century ago.
Had the ship carrying the trio of explorers in 1912, the Aurora, gotten icebound the same way the M.V. Akademik Shokalskiy did, there would have been no rescue option and certain death
Wow, you do like to spout misrepresentations and zombie arguments don't you? The increasing EXTENT of the sea ice in Antarctica is another sign of global warming, just as the falling overall VOLUME of ice is. This, again, is the result of the increasing windspeeds of the circumpolar wind cutting the continent off from the warmer tropical airmass, combined with another source of increased ice production; freshening in the upper ocean around Antarctica due to increased melting of Antarctic continental ice, through ocean/ice shelf interaction and iceberg decay. This SUPPORTS global warming!
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) May 30, 2014
he expedition is being led by Chris Turney, "climate scientist", who has "set up a carbon refining company called Carbonscape which has developed technology to fix carbon from the atmosphere and make a host of green bi-products, helping reduce greenhouse gas levels."
http://www.thegwp...tic-ice/
Oh, no wonder you have no idea what you are talking about, you actually believe the denialist blather spouted by this paid shill and misrepresented as "science"! Have you ever considered thinking for yourself? Or do you get paid to spout this drivel?
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) May 30, 2014
The denialist manifesto; take out of context quote mines, misrepresented data and anti-socialist dogma, mix well, post result with a liberal sprinkling of sciency sounding words, ignore refutations or facts, repost ad nauseum. For example:

Eighty three years ago today, Mawson was sailing along the Antarctic coast. In 2013, global warming nutcases trying to retrace Mawson's route are hoping an icebreaker comes and saves them.
and
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Station Data: Amundsen-Scot (90.0 S,0.0 E)
and
PUBLISHED DECEMBER 26, 2013
"Had the ship carrying the trio of explorers in 1912, the Aurora, gotten icebound the same way the M.V. Akademik Shokalskiy did, there would have been no rescue option and certain death.
and
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Station Data: Amundsen-Scot (90.0 S,0.0 E)
And so it goes, in this thread alone.

Seriously, how stupid does a person have to be to believe such crap?
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) May 30, 2014
So yes, denier, the record cold in Antarctica is actually a sign of global warming, not evidence against it.

Grasping at every possible cherry is mr spam man Maggnus. Of course this one has done the rounds before and I'm sure will do again.
They just can't get it into their tiny minds that Antarctica is such an extreme place.
A new measurement via satellite is also of the surface radiance, an earth bound measurement is made at 1.5m and so this will be colder than that.This is a region otherwise never surveyed for temperature but bound to have the lowest on Earth.
Dome A is ~13500ft and has an effective altitude (reduced pressure due extreme cold air) of prob nearer 16000ft. ie it has near half of the atmosphere below it!!
This sat under a basically bone dry Trop with a bloody great O3 hole above that in the Strat.
FFS
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) May 30, 2014
j'swallow said:

you also need to replace your glasses because you either can' read graphs or, the most likely case, are too stupid to know what you are looking [...]NASA graph shows very clearly that the temperature [[[peak]]] in 1957 was higher by several tens of degrees [...]


From your link:

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Station Data: Amundsen-Scot (90.0 S,0.0 E)
http://data.giss....mp;ds=12


Is completely idiotic. And not only your idiotic assertions, but also this further incomprehensible claptrap:

Caliban: The highest temperature, according to the chart that you cannot read, occurred in 1978 & was -44.8 while the lowest temperature, -50.5 occurred on 1989 & all of the other lowest temperatures have been from [...] be it Fahrenheit or Celsius, the greater the # with the - before it, then the colder it is. For you I give this example; -46 is colder than -45. Got that?...


Is mere desperate maneuvering to try to cover your idiocy.

Now piss off, moron.
jdswallow
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 01, 2014

I know from experience with you idiots on this site that you are too stupid to take your questions up with the sites that I present; but, in your idiotic way, you would rather press an attack against me.

You sure had plenty to say when I presented these links but nothing to dispute the record high temperatures and that shows just how shallow and flawed your views are & now you offer up your garbage about Antarctica..

http://www.infopl...375.html

This link shows the same records.
http://www.worldf...emes.php

These records do change, such as in this instance.
Consequently, the WMO assessment is that the official highest recorded surface temperature of 56.7°C (134°F) was measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley), California, USA. Full details of the assessment are given in the on-line issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (http://dx.doi.org...0093.1).
http://www.wmo.in..._en.html

jdswallow
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 01, 2014
New Record for Coldest Place on Earth, in Antarctica
http://news.natio...science/
Exactly what is expected, for two reasons. First, it's cold in Antarctica, and only in the last few decades have temperatures in the remotest parts of this continent been measurable. There are going to be "new records" purely as a result of statistical flukes that arise from weather. Secondly, the combination of highly concentrated O3 in the upper atmosphere and the increasing windspeeds of the southern circumpolar winds due to global warming, means that temperatures will fall over the middle continental land mass in the short term.

So yes, denier, the record cold in Antarctica is actually a sign of global warming, not evidence against it.


Mangus: OK there stupid idiot with NO facts other than baseless conjecture & that is now and has always been the way with you fools who believe in this bull s...t that has never been proven in an empirical experiment that CO2 has anything to do with the earth's climate. Not proven because how can it be when there is so little of it in the atmosphere?

It is the very basis of the scientific method that data trumps hypothesis: as the Nobel laureate Richard Feynman put it, "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." And a wealth of new empirical and semi-empirical evidence is now suggesting that any warming is likely to be far, far less than has been predicted by the vast electronic hypotheses that are the climate models.

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Station Data: Amundsen-Scot (90.0 S,0.0 E)
http://data.giss....mp;ds=12

May 17, 2014
Antarctic Sea Ice Extent is 1,202,000 sq km above the 1981-2010 mean. That is the 69th daily record of 2014.
http://sunshineho...-normal/
jdswallow
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 01, 2014
A Russian vessel is stranded in ice off the coast of Antarctica with 74 people onboard, including the scientific team recreating explorer Douglas Mawson's Australasian Antarctic Expedition from a century ago.
Had the ship carrying the trio of explorers in 1912, the Aurora, gotten icebound the same way the M.V. Akademik Shokalskiy did, there would have been no rescue option and certain death
Wow, you do like to spout misrepresentations and zombie arguments don't you? The increasing EXTENT of the sea ice in Antarctica is another sign of global warming, just as the falling overall VOLUME of ice is. This, again, is the result of the increasing windspeeds of the circumpolar wind cutting the continent off from the warmer tropical airmass, combined with another source of increased ice production; freshening in the upper ocean around Antarctica due to increased melting of Antarctic continental ice, through ocean/ice shelf interaction and iceberg decay. This SUPPORTS global warming!

Maggnus: I'm sure that you wear slip on shoes because what you say demonstrates that you are too stupid to ever learn how to ties a shoe lace. You idiot, why aren't you smart enough to understand that if Mawson made to this position where these fools got stranded in modern ships while Mawson had no such advantage 100 years ago then there was NO ice there. Got that you, dunce?

Atte Korhola, a Professor of Environmental Change at the University of Helsinki:
"When later generations learn about climate science, they will classify the beginning of the twenty-first century as an embarrassing chapter in the history of science. They will wonder about our time and use it as a warning of how core values and criteria of science were allowed little by little to be forgotten, as the actual research topic of climate change turned into a political and social playground."
http://www.bishop...rse.html


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Albert Einstein

One thing I'm sure of Maggnus, you and others in your camp are among the MOST stupid there are, anywhere.

The important thing is not to stop questioning.
Albert Einstein
jdswallow
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 01, 2014
So yes, denier, the record cold in Antarctica is actually a sign of global warming, not evidence against it.

Grasping at every possible cherry is mr spam man Maggnus. Of course this one has done the rounds before and I'm sure will do again.
They just can't get it into their tiny minds that Antarctica is such an extreme place.
A new measurement via satellite is also of the surface radiance, an earth bound measurement is made at 1.5m and so this will be colder than that.This is a region otherwise never surveyed for temperature but bound to have the lowest on Earth.
Dome A is ~13500ft and has an effective altitude (reduced pressure due extreme cold air) of prob nearer 16000ft. ie it has near half of the atmosphere below it!!
This sat under a basically bone dry Trop with a bloody great O3 hole above that in the Strat.
FFS


You, Tony Banton (AKA, runrig), have to be the most disingenuous and dishonest of the fools that get on here and show their total ignorance of this subject. You did have some education that was obviously a total waste because you seem to have lost all sense of logic and the ability to reason.

One does not have to wonder at how you coached these people at the CRU on how to lie since you are so very good at it yourself; but, like them, you get caught doing so.

"University of East Anglia emails: the most contentious quotes
Here are a selection of quotes from the emails stolen from computers at the University of East Anglia. Many involve Phil Jones, head of the university's Climatic Research Unit."
http://www.telegr...tes.html

Phil Jones has to have learned a lesson from all of the prevaricating that occurred under his watch and now, just maybe, will tell the TRUTH, for a change & that is something that you will never be caught doing.

Phil Jones: "No global warming since 1995″
Richard Treadgold | February 14, 2010
http://www.climat...ce-1995/

jdswallow
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 01, 2014
j'swallow said:

you also need to replace your glasses because you either can' read graphs or, the most likely case, are too stupid to know what you are looking [...]NASA graph shows very clearly that the temperature [[[peak]]] in 1957 was higher by several tens of degrees [...]


From your link:

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Station Data: Amundsen-Scot (90.0 S,0.0 E)
http://data.giss....mp;ds=12


Then there is the fool who is too stupid to be able to read a graph that is straight forward and easily comprehensible to anyone with a brain, which excludes this stupid dunce that NEVER offers any information on their own & that is Caliban who I'm describing. Caliban, before you forget where the rock is that you crawled out from under, you would do well to return there so as not to be caught out in the sun, which is what has always caused the climate to act as it does or why would there have been an ice age, an end of that ice age to be followed by recent climatological events such as the:
250 BC - 400 AD Roman Warm Period.
Climate changes of 535-536 (535-536 AD), sudden cooling and failure of harvests,
900 - 1300 Medieval warm period, wet in Europe, arid in North America, may have depopulated the Great Plains of North America, associated with the Medieval renaissances in Europe
Great Famine of 1315–17 in Europe
Little ice age: Various dates between 1250 and 1550 or later are held to mark the start of the Little ice age, ending at equally varied dates mostly after 1850, or still in progress.
1460 - 1550 Spörer Minimum cold
1656-1715 Maunder Minimum low sunspot activity
1790 - 1830 Dalton Minimum low sunspot activity, cold
Year Without a Summer (1816), caused by volcanic dust
1850 - present Retreat of glaciers since 1850, Instrumental temperature record

Explain these events that occurred without the influence of CO2, you idiot.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2014
Six tactics used by jdspoutsBS:
1) Doubt the science - attack the science by cherry picking data, misrepresenting research or making bogus claims.
2) Question the motives and integrity of scientists - claim the scientists are engaged in fraud, or are being pressured by governments to make up the results.
3) Magnify disagreements among scientists and cite gadflies - The tiny percentage of actual scientists who express scepticism (Plimer, Lindzen, Curry, McIntyre et al ) are dwarfed by the thousands of scientists who agree with the consensus that climate change is happening.
4) Exaggerate potential harm - normally takes the form of "harm" the economy if the government intervenes.
5) Appeal to personal freedom – plays on the anxiety that he will lose some freedoms.
6) Acceptance repudiates key philosophy - For libertarians and free market advocates, climate change is a direct challenge to their assumption of unlimited growth.

Lying denialist.
Caliban
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2014
j'swallow said:

you also need to replace your glasses because you either can' read graphs or, the most likely case, are too stupid to know what you are looking [...]NASA graph shows very clearly that the temperature [[[peak]]] in 1957 was higher by several tens of degrees [...]


From your link:

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Station Data: Amundsen-Scot (90.0 S,0.0 E)
http://data.giss....mp;ds=12


Then there is the fool who is too stupid to be able to read a graph that is straight forward and easily comprehensible to anyone with a brain, which excludes this stupid dunce that NEVER offers any information on their own & that is Caliban who I'm describing. Caliban, before you forget where the rock is that you crawled out from under, you would do well to return there so as not to be caught out in the sun, which is what has always caused the climate to act as it does or why would there have been an ice ag[...]

Howling cur.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2014
Data from GISS for Global ave temps Nov 2013 to Apr 2014:

Notice how little white to blue Colder than ave there is in the NH.
That's only because you disingenuously cherry-picked a much cooler base period.

Seeing how your charts look in the proper (contemporary) context, we see cooler temperatures popping up all over:

http://data.giss....;pol=rob

http://data.giss....;pol=rob

http://data.giss....;pol=rob

http://data.giss....;pol=rob

http://data.giss....;pol=rob

http://data.giss....;pol=rob

runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2014
I know from experience with you idiots on this site that you are too stupid to take your questions up with the sites that I present; but, in your idiotic way, you would rather press an attack against me.

The "attack" is a self-fulfilling prophecy for you my friend precisely for the reasons you behave and accuse us of. It is not us who are arguing the unarguable against emipirical science and all the rest, such that makes reasoned discussion useless. Like I said, you only win (in your mind) because you have persistence in being idiotic. I, for one, refuse to engage someone displaying your behaviour. Any regular neutrals on here have long since figured out things. As for you I care not a jot.
Oh - I have started and will continue to report your overlong posts.
You have been told often enough to stop, and by me at least, politely.
PS: I saw you mentioned my name in a recent post, but as I told you also, I no longer read them in entirety.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2014
The good new about ubamoron? He has used his cherry-picked data set so often now, barely anyone bothers with him.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2014
The good new about ubamoron? He has used his cherry-picked data set so often now, barely anyone bothers with him.
Do you even know what it means to cherry-pick? If you did, you would understand this is exactly what you do when you deliberately ignore the pause/cooling.

"Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias."

http://en.wikiped...fallacy)

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2014
The "attack" is a self-fulfilling prophecy for you my friend precisely for the reasons you behave and accuse us of. It is not us who are arguing the unarguable against emipirical science and all the rest, such that makes reasoned discussion useless. Like I said, you only win (in your mind) because you have persistence in being idiotic. I, for one, refuse to engage someone displaying your behaviour. Any regular neutrals on here have long since figured out things. As for you I care not a jot.
Oh - I have started and will continue to report your overlong posts.
You have been told often enough to stop, and by me at least, politely.
PS: I saw you mentioned my name in a recent post, but as I told you also, I no longer read them in entirety.
There you go again.

When the questions get tough, runrig runs away...

Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2014
The good new about ubamoron? He has used his cherry-picked data set so often now, barely anyone bothers with him.
Do you even know what it means to cherry-pick? If you did, you would understand this is exactly what you do when you deliberately ignore the pause/cooling.

"Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias."

http://en.wikiped...fallacy)

Yep, same old, same old. "No I don't, you do!"

You. are. a. moron!
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2014
The good new about ubamoron? He has used his cherry-picked data set so often now, barely anyone bothers with him.
Do you even know what it means to cherry-pick? If you did, you would understand this is exactly what you do when you deliberately ignore the pause/cooling.

"Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias."

http://en.wikiped...fallacy)

Yep, same old, same old. "No I don't, you do!"

You. are. a. moron!
And more of the same name-calling and denial, from you.

Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2014
The good new about ubamoron? He has used his cherry-picked data set so often now, barely anyone bothers with him.
Do you even know what it means to cherry-pick? If you did, you would understand this is exactly what you do when you deliberately ignore the pause/cooling.

"Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias."

http://en.wikiped...fallacy)

Yep, same old, same old. "No I don't, you do!"

You. are. a. moron!
And more of the same name-calling and denial, from you.



And quite rightly so, ubybooby.

No other term can adequately describe someone who persists in idiocy.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Jun 03, 2014
And quite rightly so, ubybooby.

No other term can adequately describe someone who persists in idiocy.
you aren't a very nice person, are you?

It appears the failure of your doomsday cult prophecies is likely inducing a defensive stress hysteria, which subsequently traps you in a deviancy amplification spiral. That is, the more the facts line up against you, the worse you get as a human being!

Caliban typifies the AGWite deviancy amplification spiral.

Caliban
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 03, 2014
And quite rightly so, ubybooby.

No other term can adequately describe someone who persists in idiocy.


you aren't a very nice person, are you?

It appears the failure of your doomsday cult prophecies is likely inducing a defensive stress hysteria, which subsequently traps you in a deviancy amplification spiral. That is, the more the facts line up against you, the worse you get as a human being!

Caliban typifies the AGWite deviancy amplification spiral.


It is true that I am inclined to be somewhat intolerant of those who repeatedly and insistently display their stupidiosity, thereby earning the designation of moron over'n'over'n'over'n'over'n'over'n'over'n'over'n'over'n'over'over'n'over'n'over'n'over'n'over'n'over'n'over'n'over'n'over, ubybooby.

jdswallow
Jun 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jdswallow
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 03, 2014
They are driven by an all-consuming urge to erect tall monuments to their
gods, in the form of windmills. These don't actually do very much at all,
except imbue the Faithful with a sense of religious righteousness for having
been erected.
Nonetheless, construction of these useless religious artifacts has meant the
diversion of vast amounts of finance, materials and labor from being
employed elsewhere – for instance to build REAL power stations.
This means many people are now going to die from exposure to the elements.
Consider them human sacrifices to the gods. Just as is practiced by other
pagan cults.
They have Holy Water in the form of biofuel. If only enough people used this
sacred elixir, the devil CO2 would be cast out and the world would be saved.
One way or another, biofuel is manufactured at the expense of food. This
means many people will now starve. More pagan cult human sacrifices.
They have holy places where they go to gain enlightenment from their
Priests. Principal amongst these sacred sites is RealClimate, but there are
many others.
ARE YOU counting Tony Banton; because, that is about the only thing you can do and maybe know something about?
jdswallow
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 03, 2014
This is what these fools that frequent this site think and their every post exemplifies that believe in a devil in the sky. Do you agree, ubavontuba?
IS BELIEF IN AGW A CULT?
Our Global Warming cultists deny they are well, cultists.
Okay, let's examine record:
They worship a pantheon of gods, starting with Mother Gaia. They even opened
their latest congregation at Canned Corn by offering a prayer to one of the
local Deities. Remember, these are the same people who claim to have science
on their side (H/T Andrew Bolt).
They have a Prophet in the form of Al Gore – the Goracle, who has many
mansions and travels the world in a big jet, spreading their Gospel – "Do as
I say, not as I do".
They have a Holy Book – the IPCC Report, which is infallible, even when it
is proved wrong. Don't mention melting Himalayan glaciers to a Believer. It
sends them into a religious frenzy.
They have a Devil called CO2, which they hate with all the passionate,
religious fervor they can muster. This devil, CO2, is responsible for all the
evil in the world, and will cause the gods to rain down any manner of
plagues – droughts, floods, locusts, acne etc. – if all of humanity does not
rise up at once to banish it.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 03, 2014
you aren't a very nice person, are you?
It appears the failure ... the worse you get as a human being!
@Uba
are you going to repeat this in every thread?

How about a request:
Given your belief that warming does not exist &
given that it goes against about all the published data &
given that you have a knowledge of basic physics &
given that you have stated that empirical data is what supports your belief &
given that you are capable of writing (as shown by your posts)
Then the best solution is a simple one AND it will likely gain you a Nobel:
PUBLISH your work in a peer reviewed journal refuting global warming, so that everyone, including we here at PO, can see the math, controls, experiments, etc
It should be easy for you and since you have all the evidence, you should shake up the scientific community

I am sure AAAS ScienceMag would publish it... especially given the overwhelming empirical data... should be a piece of cake, right?

I await your publication with bated breath
jdswallow
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 03, 2014
"Scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the unpardonable sin." Huxley

As the sainted Mencken once quipped, "I love liberty and I hate fraud."

"The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it" — H L Mencken

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual". --Galileo

Galilio, who Tony said was not a scientist, said this:
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual". --Galileo

"The sun, with all those planets revolving around it and dependent on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as if it had nothing else in the universe to do.
Galileo Galilei

OK Maggnus, come up with some stupid comment about these quotes that you do not enough brains to understand that most apply to your conjecture about a consensus and when has science been decided by consensus?

jdswallow
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 03, 2014

Yep, same old, same old. "No I don't, you do!"

You. are. a. moron!


It would appear that Maggnus is doing a great job of taking over the role of lead delusional and stupid idiot from runrig who can't even quote Mark Twain right; therefore, what can this fool get correct? NOTHING, it seems.
"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." ~ Mark Twain

Here are some other examples of the wisdom of Mark Twain and one will find nothing comparable coming from any of the alarmist idiots on here.

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."~ Mark Twain

"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing" ~ Mark Twain

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." ~ Mark Twain

As Bertrand Russell said: "The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible." This one above describes Maggnus &the IPCC Panel quite well.

Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2014
There is no need to counter the disjointed ramblings of a clearly disturbed individual like jdspoutsBS because they are so obviously pointless they are worthy of nothing more than scorn and laughter.
Clearly the drooling rabble that continue to support the absurd notion that more than 90% of the planets scientists are engaged in some fantastical conspiracy are in the minority and shrinking, and with every bile filled written spittle spewed by such as this asinine simpleton, ever more of those actually know how to think for themselves and have even the slightest ability to separate evidence from denialist conspiratism leave such rambling cretins as this behind.
The imbecilic fabulist that is jdspoutsBS can't even construct insults of his own making, instead needing to stoop to quote mining the thoughts of others to supplement his emptyheaded gibberish. If you are an example of what is left of the jack-booted conservatism that spit out your kind, then no wonder you have lost the debate.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2014
This is what these fools that frequent this site think and their every post exemplifies that believe in a devil in the sky. Do you agree, ubavontuba?
IS BELIEF IN AGW A CULT?
Not so much an an organized cult, but a cult of belief, nonetheless.

Our Global Warming cultists deny they are well, cultists.
They have been suckered, much like the Republic was suckered by the Emperor in Star Wars.

"So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause."

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 04, 2014
you aren't a very nice person, are you?
It appears the failure ... the worse you get as a human being!
@Uba
are you going to repeat this in every thread?
Only the ones where the AGWites behave like terrible human beings. So I guess that's about all the threads having to do with the climate ...so, yeah.

How about a request:
Given your belief that warming does not exist
I haven't made this claim.

& given that it goes against about all the published data &
given that you have a knowledge of basic physics &
given that you have stated that empirical data is what supports your belief &
given that you are capable of writing (as shown by your posts)
Then the best solution is a simple one AND it will likely gain you a Nobel:
PUBLISH your work in a peer reviewed journal refuting global warming, so that everyone, including we here at PO, can see the math, controls, experiments, etc
Judith Curry is doing a fine job.

It should be easy for you and since you have all the evidence, you should shake up the scientific community

I am sure AAAS ScienceMag would publish it... especially given the overwhelming empirical data... should be a piece of cake, right?

I await your publication with bated breath
And snide baiting like this is just more evidence AGWites are terrible human beings...

Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2014
you aren't a very nice person, are you?
It appears the failure ... the worse you get as a human being!
@Uba
are you going to repeat this in every thread?
Only the ones where the AGWites behave like terrible human beings. So I guess that's about all the threads having to do with the climate ...so, yeah.


Given your belief that warming does not exist
I haven't made this claim.

& given that it goes against about all the published data &
given that you have a knowledge of basic physics &
given that you have stated that empirical data is what supports your belief &
given that you are capable of writing (as shown by your posts)
Then the best solution is a simple one AND it will likely gain you a Nobel:
PUBLISH your work in a peer reviewed journal refuting global warming, so that everyone, including we here at PO, can see the math, controls, experiments, etc
Judith Curry is doing a fine job.

Aw -ubybooby got a boobboo?

Boohoo, boohoo, boohoo.
howhot2
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2014
you aren't a very nice person, are you?
It appears the failure ... the worse you get as a human being!
@Uba
are you going to repeat this in every thread?

How about a request:
Given your belief that warming does not exist &
given that it goes against about all the published data &
given that you have a knowledge of basic physics &
given that you have stated that empirical data is what supports your belief &
given that you are capable of writing (as shown by your posts)
Then the best solution is a simple one AND it will likely gain you a Nobel:
PUBLISH your work in a peer reviewed journal refuting global warming, so that everyone, including we here at PO, can see the math, controls, experiments, etc
It should be easy for you and since you have all the evidence, you should shake up the scientific community

Hell if @Uba published it in his high school newspaper, I would be impressed! (I kid uba, but your views on AGW are so very wrong).


Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2014
And snide baiting like this
@uba
maybe some hyperbole or sarcasm, but I still offer the challenge
IF you can come up with the empirical data and publish it in a peer reviewed publication with a high impact factor for climate science, then you are likely to get more attention for your belief, especially as there is a preponderance of evidence against your claims
IF you have the empirical evidence, you should get the Nobel
Given your belief that warming does not exist

I haven't made this claim
when you repeatedly post something like this
No, a ridiculous suggestion is that the globe is warming, when it isn't
&
I use temperatures to show that temperatures have turned around
http://phys.org/news/2014-06-southern-ocean-explanation-glacial-maximum.html &
Um ...no. The globe is cooling http://www.woodfo....3/trend
http://phys.org/news/2014-05-nepal-glaciers-quarter-years.html
then one can be excused for assuming that you dont believe in warming
to be cont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2014
more evidence AGWites are terrible human beings
@uba
continued
this is definitely a perspective issue, as some people believe it is MORE wrong to post known fallacies and create confusion with misrepresented facts or cherry-picked data. In the same way you say
I haven't made this claim
and yet, in your own words, we can repeatedly show where you argue against any mention of warming in climate, and usually with truncated charts picked specifically to show a pattern that you wish others to perceive (often referred to as cherry-picking)

again, I offer you the challenge, which I consider legitimate:
PUBLISH your own study in a peer reviewed journal showing all your "empirical data" proving that global warming is wrong, and offer your solutions as well as supporting data
there really is no way you could NOT walk away with accolades if your data is legit and you have empirical proof, as that is the basis of science and the foundation to the scientific method
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2014
@uba
in conclusion
Given your public opposition to global warming (better?) &
given that your opposition goes against about all the published data &
given that you have a knowledge of basic physics &
given that you have intimated that empirical data is what supports your belief &
given that you are capable of writing
Then the best solution is a simple one AND it will guarantee you accolades if true:
PUBLISH your work in a peer reviewed journal refuting global warming, so that everyone, including we here at PO, can see the math, controls, experiments, etc

science is about empirical data, and if you publish a paper in a peer reviewed journal with empirical data and it is irrefutable, then we would have to believe it as there would be no logical reason for opposition

This is logical considering the continued opposition you give against the published empirical data (of which there is an incredible amount of) and really the only logical choice

not baiting. I'm respectfully requesting
jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) Jun 05, 2014
There is no need to counter the disjointed ramblings of a clearly disturbed individual like jdspoutsBS because they are so obviously pointless they are worthy of nothing more than scorn and laughter.

Maybe someone can jar Maggnus into realizing that this was supposed to be about "Climate scientist proposes extremely cold 2014 winter link to global warming" but for some one too stupid to ever read, research or any of the things that normal inquisitive people do; they find more pleasure in existing in their own little world where stupidity and ignorance is King. Where are some links such as what ubavontuba presents and I for sure use to until being exposed to fools like yourself and the other know-nothings on this site who present nothing of any value, what so ever, because they are too stupid to even know if there is a topic of discussion?
11:50 AM | 2013 – a year with minimal extreme weather events in the US
"There have been many forecasts in the news in recent years predicting more and more extreme weather-related events in the US, but for 2013 that prediction has been way off the mark. Whether you're talking about tornadoes, wildfires, extreme heat or hurricanes, the good news is that weather-related disasters in the US are all way down this year compared to recent years and, in some cases, down to historically low levels."
http://thesiweath...-the-us/
jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) Jun 05, 2014
I'm sure that Maggnus can come up with a prediction that will rival the one that the IPCC made and will also be as incorrect as they and their "climate models" have been.

"Still no global warming for 17 years 9 months
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley – Special to Climate Depot
According to the RSS satellite data, whose value for May 2014 has just been published, the global warming trend in the 17 years 9 years since September 1996 is zero (Fig. 1). The 213 months without global warming represent more than half the 425-month satellite data record since January 1979. No one now in high school has lived through global warming.

[…]The First Assessment Report predicted that global temperature would rise by 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] Cº to 2025, equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] Cº century–1.
"Nevertheless, … we have substantial confidence that models can predict at least the broad-scale features of climate change.
That "substantial confidence" was substantial over-confidence.
http://www.climat...aign=Fee

Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2014
"Still no global warming for 17 years 9 months
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley – Special to Climate Depot
According to the RSS satellite data, whose value for May 2014 has just been published, the global warming trend in the 17 years 9 years since September 1996 is zero (Fig. 1). The 213 months without global warming represent more than half the 425-month satellite data record since January 1979. No one now in high school has lived through global warming.


Monkton? PTUI!

Here's a point-by-point takedown of "Citizen Monkton", possibly a bona fide member of the British Peerage, but certainly no scientist:

http://www.stthom...abraham/

j' swallows DenierAntiscience-flavored koolaid, among other things.

You'll get the stick every time you flood with this stupidiosity.

Moron.



jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) Jun 05, 2014
"Still no global warming for 17 years 9 months
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley – Special to Climate Depot
According to the RSS satellite data, whose value for May 2014 has just been published, the global warming trend in the 17 years 9 years since September 1996 is zero (Fig. 1). The 213 months without global warming represent more than half the 425-month satellite data record since January 1979. No one now in high school has lived through global warming.


Caliban: I have seen the bogus site that you have directed me to before & it has no more validity than anything that you may dream up has. Forget Christopher Monckton & deal with the facts that he presented or, as you have repeatedly shown you are too blatantly STUPID to ever think of doing that because you do not know how to do so. Sea levels are something your idiot of the day, Abraham, tried to lie about.

"In the last 300 years, sea level has been oscillation close to the present with peak rates in the period 1890-1930. Sea level fell between 1930 and 1950. The late 20th century lacks any sign of acceleration. Satellite altimetry indicates virtually no changes in the last decade. Therefore, observationally based predictions of future sea level in the year 2100 will give a value of +10 +10 cm (or +5 +15 cm), by this discarding model out-puts by IPCC as well as global loading models. In conclusions, there are firm observationally based reasons to free the world from the condemnation to become extensively flooded in the 21st century AD.

https://gsa.confe...4461.htm

Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2014


Caliban: I have seen the bogus site that you have directed me to before & it has no more validity than anything that you may dream up has. Forget Christopher Monckton & deal with the facts that he presented or, as you have repeatedly shown you are too blatantly STUPID to ever think of doing that because you do not know how to do so. Sea levels are something your idiot of the day, Abraham, tried to lie about.


But of course, j'swallow --let's dismiss the evidence presented by an actual scientist, and give credence to a lumpy-headed troll-- a Monckton Troll, if you will.

Haha -no chance of that, moron!

As for your cittation following that appeal to stupidiosity --where in hell did you dig up that claptrap? You tried to present a clipped version of whatever the hell it is, in order to provide the appearance of peer-reviewed science, but of course --as all moron trolls do-- failed utterly.

Now, piss off.


jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2014


Caliban: I have seen the bogus site that you have directed me to before & it has no more validity than anything that you may dream up has. Forget Christopher Monckton & deal with the facts that he presented or, as you have repeatedly shown you are too blatantly STUPID to ever think of doing that because you do not know how to do so. Sea levels are something your idiot of the day, Abraham, tried to lie about.


I can see that the stupidity that you have been cursed with is not ever going to leave you, because it cannot. Ignorance is redeemable through learning and education while stupidity is something that people like Caliban have to struggle with their whole dismal lives. It is easy to understand that Caliban would have no knowledge of DR. Nils-Axel MÖRNER because Caliban is not smart enough to comprehend what someone is saying that has the facts, unlike his John Abraham, at the Podunk University of St Thomas.

"Monckton pushes back at the lawyers, asking them to name the specific organization they serve' to specify the "disparaging remarks" they object to, to confirm Monckton can publish all their correspondence and expose the lies and intellectual cowardice, to explain why it's ok for the University to publish untruths but not ok for Monckton to reply to them, and to name the Trustees of the clients so Monckton can write to them to ask them to investigate both Abraham's and Dease's indefensible behavior."
Abrahams et al did not reply.
They have no answer to any of Monckton's points.
http://joannenova...ntruths/

jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2014
I have seen videos of Christopher Monckton giving a presentation together with DR.Richard Lindzen in London and they were much more convincing regarding the science surrounding your scam, agw, than what Abraham is from Podunk U trying to convince people that he knows what he is talking about.

"Richard Siegmund Lindzen who is a Harvard-trained atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 books and scientific papers. He has been a critic of some anthropogenic global warming theories and the alleged political pressures on climate scientists"
http://en.wikiped..._Lindzen


John Abraham wrote his theses on "A comprehensive experimental, analytical, and numerical investigation of the modes of heat transfer in an electrically heated oven We shouldn't forget that Obama's "science adviser", John Holdren, that was predicting global cooling back in the 1970's.

"White House science czar John Holdren has predicted 1 billion people will die in "carbon-dioxide induced famines" in a coming new ice age by 2020."
http://www.wnd.co.../112317/
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2014
@jdspoutsBS - that you continue to try and cloud the issues using the tried and tested methods of obfuscation, gish-gallop and quote mining says more about your pretended outrage than the science you pretend to argue. You're a farcical representation of "the climate science critic" and nothing more.

Your use of material mined from a book written in 1971 is just another example of trial by insinuation. The opinions of people from 40+ years ago are as interesting as the opinions people had about astronomy in 1871. Irrelevant quote mining to obfuscate the real science is what you are really pedalling here.

That you continue to quote the likes of Litzen and Moncton is laughably predictable, and laughingly pointless. Your utter irrelevance in the real discussions is what you are really outraged about, and this is also laughingly predictable.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2014
Hey Magganus, why don't you just stick to regurgitating the lies....er...preachings of your False "Profit" Gore. The idea that there are those who are still capable of independent and intelligent thought, is obviously beyond your simple mind.
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 07, 2014
Hey Magganus, why don't you just stick to regurgitating the lies....er...preachings of your False "Profit" Gore. The idea that there are those who are still capable of independent and intelligent thought, is obviously beyond your simple mind.


I doubt that maggnus is unaware that there are people out there capable of independent thought.

But you aren't one of them, auntiegriselda.

Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 07, 2014
Come now Caliban, I think its cute the way againstseeing keeps trying to insert himself into the adult's conversation. It's very much like watching my 5 year old niece trying to get into the conversation about her mom's wedding. We all smile indulgently and then pat her on the head and give her a doll to play with.

Same exact thing with this idiot. Just pat his little head and smile. Remember, he is just beginning to understand that he is irrevocably irrelevant and that makes him want to stomp his little feet and pout. Absolutely irrelevant.

Not even worth the bother of responding to.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2014
Hey Magganus, why don't you just stick to regurgitating the lies....er...preachings of your False "Profit" Gore. The idea that there are those who are still capable of independent and intelligent thought, is obviously beyond your simple mind.


I doubt that maggnus is unaware that there are people out there capable of independent thought.

But you aren't one of them, auntiegriselda.


how would you know?
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 29, 2014
Hey Magganus, why don't you just stick to regurgitating the lies....er...preachings of your False "Profit" Gore. The idea that there are those who are still capable of independent and intelligent thought, is obviously beyond your simple mind.


I doubt that maggnus is unaware that there are people out there capable of independent thought.

But you aren't one of them, auntiegriselda.


how would you know?


Simple, auntiegriselda.

Just as simple as by reading your posts, and --et voila!-- QED.

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.