Science Says: Why there's a big chill in a warmer world

January 3, 2018 by Seth Borenstein
Science Says: Why there's a big chill in a warmer world
Water is frozen on a tree in Fort Walton Beach, Fla., on Tuesday Jan. 2, 2018 after a resident left his sprinklers on. Temperatures are expected to stay below freezing at night for the Panhandle through Thursday morning. (Nick Tomecek/Northwest Florida Daily News via AP)

Anchorage, Alaska, was warmer Tuesday than Jacksonville, Florida. The weather in the U.S. is that upside down.

That's because the Arctic's deeply frigid escaped its regular atmospheric jail that traps the worst cold. It then meandered south to the central and eastern United States.

And this has been happening more often in recent times, scientists say.

WHY IS IT SO COLD?

Super cold air is normally locked up in the Arctic in the , which is a gigantic circular weather pattern around the North Pole. A strong polar vortex keeps that cold air hemmed in.

"Then when it weakens, it causes like a dam to burst," and the heads south, said Judah Cohen, a winter storm expert for Atmospheric Environmental Research, a commercial firm outside Boston.

"This is not record-breaking for Canada or Alaska or northern Siberia, it's just misplaced," said Cohen, who had forecast a colder than normal winter for much of the U.S.

IS THIS UNUSUAL?

Yes, but more for how long—about 10 days— the cold has lasted, than how cold it has been. On Tuesday, Boston tied its seven-day record for the most consecutive days at or below 20 degrees that was set exactly 100 years ago.

Science Says: Why there's a big chill in a warmer world
A layer of ice is broken into pieces floating along the banks of the Hudson River at the Palisades Interstate Park with the George Washington Bridge in the background, Tuesday, Jan. 2, 2018, in Fort Lee, N.J. The Northern New Jersey region continued to experienced deep cold weather to start the new year. (AP Photo/Julio Cortez)

More than 1,600 daily records for cold were tied or broken in the last week of December, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. For Greg Carbin of the National Weather Service's Weather Prediction Center, the most meaningful statistics are how last week's average temperature was the second coldest in more than a century of record-keeping for Minneapolis, Chicago, Detroit and Kansas City, third coldest in Pittsburgh and fifth coldest in New York City.

IS IT JUST THE U.S.?

Pretty much. While the United States has been in the deep freeze, the rest of the globe has been toastier than normal. The globe as a whole was 0.9 degrees (0.5 degrees Celsius) warmer than normal Tuesday and the Arctic was more than 6 degrees warmer than normal (3.4 degrees Celsius), according to the University of Maine Climate Change Institute's analysis .

WHAT'S NEXT?

The cold will continue and could actually worsen for much of the East Coast this weekend because of a monster storm that's brewing in the Atlantic and Caribbean, what meteorologists are calling a "snow hurricane" or "bomb cyclone."

But forecasters don't think the storm will hit the East Coast, keeping most of the snow and worst winds over open ocean, although parts of the Northeast are still likely to get high winds, waves and some snow.

"For the Northeast, this weekend might be the coldest of the coldest with the storm," said Jason Furtado, a University of Oklahoma meteorology professor. "We could be ending (the cold snap) with a big hurrah."

WHAT MAKES THE POLAR VORTEX MOVE?

This is an area of hot debate and research among scientists and probably is a mix of human-caused climate change and natural variability, said Furtado. Climate change hasn't made the polar vortex more extreme, but it probably is making it move more, which makes the weather seem more extreme, he said.

Science Says: Why there's a big chill in a warmer world
A coin operated binocular is covered with snow on Goat Island at Niagara Falls State Park in Niagara Falls, N.Y., Tuesday, Jan. 2, 2018. Almost every year frigid temperatures transform Niagara Falls State Park into an icy winter wonderland when the mist of the falls is blown back, freezing on the landscape. (James Neiss/The Niagara Gazette via AP)

A recent study by Potsdam Institute climate scientist Marlene Kretschmer found the polar vortex has weakened and meandered more often since 1990, but that study focused more on Europe. Ongoing research shows that there seems to be a similar connection for more frequent Arctic cold snaps like what the U.S. is now experiencing, Kretschmer said.

HOW CAN IT BE SO COLD WITH GLOBAL WARMING?

Don't confuse weather—which is a few days or weeks in one region—with climate, which is over years and decades and global. Weather is like a person's mood, which changes frequently, while is like someone's personality, which is more long-term, Furtado said.

"A few cold days doesn't disprove ," Furtado said. "That's just silly. Just like a couple down days on the stock market doesn't mean the economy is going into the trash."

Explore further: Winter cold extremes linked to high-altitude polar vortex weakening

Related Stories

What is the polar vortex?

December 15, 2016

The polar vortex is a large area of low pressure and cold air surrounding both of the Earth's poles. It ALWAYS exists near the poles, but weakens in summer and strengthens in winter. The term "vortex" refers to the counter-clockwise ...

Satellite keeps an eye on US holiday travel weather

December 26, 2017

A satellite view of the U.S. on Dec. 22 revealed holiday travelers on both coasts are running into wet weather. A visible image from NOAA's GOES-16 satellite showed systems affecting the Pacific Northwest, the Ohio and Tennessee ...

Feds: Don't expect winter to be polar vortex redux

October 16, 2014

(AP)—Federal forecasters don't expect a return of frequent cold blasts from the polar vortex this winter. Nor should the weather system that blocked rain from California last winter come back.

Recommended for you

Top nitrogen researchers imagine world beyond fossil fuels

May 25, 2018

Freeways choked with traffic, supermarkets laden with fertilizer-grown stock from distance fields and virtually everything we touch derived from petroleum-based plastics. It's hard to imagine life beyond our fossil-fueled ...

Climate change may lead to bigger atmospheric rivers

May 25, 2018

A new NASA-led study shows that climate change is likely to intensify extreme weather events known as atmospheric rivers across most of the globe by the end of this century, while slightly reducing their number.

140 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

unrealone1
1.3 / 5 (14) Jan 03, 2018
Record Snow, Record Cold, all means record "Heat"?
Record snow of 4 times the record! means record heat?
Don't mention record low Sun spots causing record cold.
If the World Globe gets any hotter the East coast will freeze sold?
Coal saves the day on the East coast, Don't see "renewable" working in minus 27 degrees? Batteries, Wind turbines and Solar cells? how much power did they generate during this record cold and snow?
As the Globe Warms how much colder will the East coast get? Al Gore?
Ojorf
4.5 / 5 (16) Jan 03, 2018
Record Snow, Record Cold, all means record "Heat"?
Record snow of 4 times the record! means record heat?
Don't mention record low Sun spots causing record cold.
If the World Globe gets any hotter the East coast will freeze sold?
Coal saves the day on the East coast, Don't see "renewable" working in minus 27 degrees? Batteries, Wind turbines and Solar cells? how much power did they generate during this record cold and snow?
As the Globe Warms how much colder will the East coast get? Al Gore?


Caught out!

Ha ha, you didn't read the article.

The stupid questions you ask were answered.
unrealone1
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 03, 2018
Record heat does not produce record snow, sry
Lowest sun spot activity produces record cold.
Where are the Dust Bowls of the 1930's if it's record hottest?
MR166
2 / 5 (12) Jan 03, 2018
Since all of these events are being retroactively "predicted" by computer models this so-called science is nothing more astrology for the mathematically inclined. Politicians are funding it in order to increase their power over the ignorant masses and universities being the greedy amoral institutions that they are willingly comply.
MR166
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 03, 2018
"University of Maine Climate Change Institute"

Even the name of "research" body shouts of a preconceived outcome. I bet it is located right next the to political science building.
billpress11
4.2 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2018
There could be a rather simple explanation for these colder (not unusual) than normal out breaks, global warming! As the earth slowly warms low and high pressure systems should become ever so slightly more intense. This would bring more cold air further south while at the same time push warmer air further north. From the temperature changes I have read about northern latitudes have showed a larger increase in average temperatures than middle latitudes. That is also easily explained, the warmer air pushed north is moving into a smaller area than where it has come from and shows up as a greater increase in average temperature.
MR166
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 03, 2018
Unfortunately there can be no real proof of the existence of AGW since the original data is hidden away if not entirely destroyed while the adjusted data is being used to create the desired outcome. They constantly find the remains of mankind under receding glaciers but claim that temperatures have never been higher.
MR166
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 03, 2018
Meanwhile they have real data on the sun and the effects of sunspot cycles on climate that they refuse to recognise. Nope, any climate change is due to man's release of CO2. It cannot be any other way or the funding dries up.
unrealone1
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 03, 2018
#1 none of the models work for the "past". How can you predict the future with adjusted homogenized data and still get the future wrong?
The models have not been shown to work for the past 7,000 years?
"best fit"
If these future models can not work to predict the past how can they predict the future.
It's like going into the stock market with a perfect "model" that just Buys
But has not been tested on the past. You future models are not going to end well?
billpress11
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 03, 2018
MR166, what do sun spots have to do with global warming? Do they increase the amount of energy the sun radiates, if so I would like a source?
billpress11
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 03, 2018
Here is a link that shows where the greatest increases in temperature have occurred over the decades.

https://earthobse...temp.php
snoosebaum
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 03, 2018
warm air = AGW , cold air = weather ,, in new-speak
MR166
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 03, 2018
Billpress there are plenty of papers out there linking sunspots to clouds and temperature change.

If you care to look them up please do. I will not spoon feed someone who does not want to eat.
billpress11
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 03, 2018
Here is a link that shows where the greatest increases in temperature have occurred over the decades.

https://earthobse...temp.php


MR166 as the link clearly shows there has been a global increase in temperatures that does not correspond to the sunspot cycles. Care to explain that?
RealityCheck
2.4 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2018
@MR166.

I hope you and yours are having a safe and fruitful/fulfilling New Year, mate. :)

Re your above assertion:
Since all of these events are being retroactively "predicted" by computer models..
I am compelled to remind you that I've been PROactively predicting these 'excursions' for quite some time now, so your assertion is not valid given the recorded facts as per my discussing/pointing out these very 'increased climate instability extreme events' due to more energy retained by Earth's convection/currents etc dynamics due to increased AGW component exacerbating warming. Please inform yourself more fully by reading my whole discussion with @antigoracle in Nov-Dec 2015, in thread:

https://phys.org/...oss.html

I draw your attention to my post of Dec 1, which I ended specifically on this aspect:
...
Do you understand?...CIRCULATION patterns/dynamics CHANGE/ACCELERATE with added heat/energy. Ok? :)
Cheers. :)
leetennant
5 / 5 (9) Jan 03, 2018
Predicted by models 20 years ago.

Story is literally "thing we knew would happen is happening".
unrealone1
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2018
@billpress11 Thank's for the Photo Shop link of temperature change?
https://earthobse...temp.php
What weather stations existed in Africa and South America in 1920? "Zero"
So yes Photo Shop!
Based on adjusted approximations
unrealone1
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2018
Coal saves the day in extreme cold, where are the renewable's at minus 27?
Minnesota's frozen turbines raise new doubts about wind power
https://venturebe...d-power/
tblakely1357
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 04, 2018
It's a neat theory were you can use any weather you don't like as evidence. I'm curious, is GW even falsifiable? If so, what would it take?
unrealone1
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 04, 2018
@tblakely1357 Exactly. There is no weather condition that would prove Global Warming is over.
Record Snow, Record Cold, Record Rain, it's all Global Warming and only an Al gore Tax can fix it!
How much Snow would it take eg FOUR times the record to show the Globe is Cooling?
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 04, 2018
OK, here's for stupid:

Differences in heat content in the atmosphere affects air current systems (like jet streams). This does mean that *some* areas will get colder and *some* areas will get wetter. E.g. if the circumpolar jet stream from the US to Europe slows down then more polar air can go into the northern latitudes (because this jet stream shileds us from these air masses).

However this stream slowing down means that anything south will experience less air movement and heat up.

If more areas are getting warmer than are getting colder and more areas are getting dryer than are getting wetter then you have *climate* change in a rather unfavorable direction (heating).

Does that spell it out for you? Or do you need an explanation for "even-more-stupid"?
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2018
Tblakley raises a valid point that others have asked. What empirical proof would be needed to prove that AGW does not exist. It used to be 20 years of pause but now that has been declared and meaningless.
leetennant
5 / 5 (8) Jan 04, 2018
Tblakley raises a valid point that others have asked. What empirical proof would be needed to prove that AGW does not exist. It used to be 20 years of pause but now that has been declared and meaningless.


That wasn't empirical proof of global cooling anyway. Multiple system measures showed warming, they just cherry picked one dataset. This is science of the "but it's cold in Boston today" variety and merely demonstrates that they have no real concept of how the overall system works. We've long known a cold Arctic was necessary to keep North American and parts of Europe temperate. If you melt the Arctic, you disrupt the global climate system and push those conditions south.

This is also a failure of their understanding of timeframes. There are short, medium and long-term impacts of a warming climate. This is a medium-term impact. The fact we're in medium-term impacts is what's fucking terrifying.
unrealone1
1 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2018
http://www.news.c...9a56c5de
Tasmania covered in snow during the first weekend of summer
DEC 3, 2017
greenonions1
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 04, 2018
MT166
It used to be 20 years of pause but now that has been declared and meaningless
Please show us where 20 years of pause has been declared and meaningless.
leetennant
5 / 5 (9) Jan 04, 2018
MT166
It used to be 20 years of pause but now that has been declared and meaningless
Please show us where 20 years of pause has been declared and meaningless.


Please show us where there was a 20 year pause
greenonions1
5 / 5 (6) Jan 04, 2018
Good discussion here of the pause issue - https://www.skept...ause.htm
MR - I will answer your question from my perspective. If overall global temps took a multi year down turn - (that would include ocean, land, atmospheric temps) - I would question the science of global warming. We would still be looking at the long term picture - climate generally accepted as being 30 year or greater time frame - to get the whole picture of what is happening.

By the way - what is your explanation for the current multi decade warming trend?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) Jan 04, 2018
all I can say is - it used to get colder in the winters...
leetennant
5 / 5 (10) Jan 04, 2018
all I can say is - it used to get colder in the winters...


On average, yes. xkcd did a fantastic comic on this a few years ago where he pointed out that people freak out over how cold winter is now, not because it's colder but because they're *no longer used to it being that cold*.
unrealone1
1 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2018
Biggest Snowstorms (One Foot or More) at Central Park (1869 to Present)

27.5 January 22-24, 2016
26.9 February 11-12, 2006
25.8 December 26-27, 1947
21.0 March 12-14, 1888

20.9 February 25-26, 2010
20.2 January 7-8, 1996
20.0 December 26-27, 2010
19.8 February 16-17, 2003
19.0 January 26-27, 2011
https://www.weath...orms.pdf
Just facts
Record snow fall NY shows Warming???
unrealone1
1 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2018
http://www.dailym...ion.html
America encased in ice: Stunning shot from space captures scale of the Siberian Express deep freeze gripping the nation
GLOBAL WARMING?
unrealone1
1 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2018
It does not matter how many Record Colds, Record snow falls, it all ways equals Global Warming?
What Record Snow or Record Cold "Event" would it take to show a change in trend?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (10) Jan 05, 2018
It does not matter how many Record Colds, Record snow falls, it all ways equals Global Warming?

It would matter if there were not *vastly* more record heat events.

What Record Snow or Record Cold "Event" would it take to show a change in trend?

You still don't get it. Climate change isn't something that hinges on one event it's a mid/long term trend.

But keep asking. You obviously came to a science site to ameliorate your lack of education.
We're all here to help you.
unrealone1
1 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2018
Tim Ball - The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science
https://www.youtu...;t=1526s

CSIRO Lacks Empirical Proof: Senator Roberts tables climate report on the CSIRO
https://www.youtu...;t=1719s
The key findings of Senator Roberts' report shows that CSIRO:

1. Refuses to state that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger

2. Does not have empirical evidence proving that carbon dioxide from human activity effects climate
billpress11
5 / 5 (7) Jan 05, 2018
Biggest Snowstorms (One Foot or More) at Central Park (1869 to Present)

27.5 January 22-24, 2016
26.9 February 11-12, 2006
25.8 December 26-27, 1947
21.0 March 12-14, 1888

20.9 February 25-26, 2010
20.2 January 7-8, 1996
20.0 December 26-27, 2010
19.8 February 16-17, 2003
19.0 January 26-27, 2011
https://www.weath...orms.pdf
Just facts
Record snow fall NY shows Warming???

Sure can, here is why as I mentioned in a previous post, higher temperatures will create more intense low pressure systems and the ones going up the east coast would bring more moisture off the ocean and more cold air from the north, mix the two together, more snowfalls along the coast.
As the earth temperature increases local weather conditions will be slowly be changed.
billpress11
5 / 5 (6) Jan 05, 2018
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2963910/Eastern-U-S-encased-ice-Stunning-shot-space-captures-deep-freeze-gripping-nation.html
America encased in ice: Stunning shot from space captures scale of the Siberian Express deep freeze gripping the nation
GLOBAL WARMING?

Sure could be, stop and think, when the Siberian Express is here, what is in Siberia? Most likely warmer than normal air. In fact it is colder in most the Midwest right now than it is Moscow or Fairbanks Alaska.
You need to draw your conclusions on worldwide temperatures not local temperatures or even local weather conditions.
unrealone1
1 / 5 (6) Jan 05, 2018
http://www.breitb...by-noaa/
Delingpole: All of Recent U.S. Warming Has Been Faked by NOAA
greenonions1
4.9 / 5 (9) Jan 05, 2018
2016 was the hottest year on record according to the European Climate Monitoring Program - and 2017 comes in a close second. As numerous posters are trying to point out GLOBAL warming is not about 5% of the earth's surface. Of course if you get your news from Breitbartand the Daily Mail - you don't understand complexities like this. I guess unreal1 has a Daily Caller article that shows that the Europeans are in cahoots with NASA - and every other scientific organization in the world - to fool us all.....http://e360.yale....n-record
snoosebaum
2 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2018
It does not matter how many Record Colds, Record snow falls, it all ways equals Global Warming?
What Record Snow or Record Cold "Event" would it take to show a change in trend?


easy, just keep adjusting the data . 2021 hottest yr ever !
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 05, 2018
#climatecrankscantcount. If it's colder here now then it must be colder everywhere is teh stupid. You were told decades ago that it's not everywhere is getting hotter monotonically, it's the total average is getting hotter, and you chose in your foolishness to ignore it. No one who understands chaotic systems thinks you're anything but stupid.

#climatecrankscantcount covers it all.
snoosebaum
2 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2018
and of course cold winters of the distant past were also caused by GW
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 05, 2018
cold winters of the distant past
Which ones precisely? If you're going to make shit up then here's holding your feet to the fire.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2018
?? , any, pick one, i dunno ,N dakota , 1936 , my place 1972, london 1740
howhot3
5 / 5 (7) Jan 05, 2018
Hummm... so let me get this correct. If it snows in Florida, Alaska is feeling all cozy and warm? So basically global warming has caused a climate level change in the atmospheric patterns that govern and regulate temperatures for the lower 48? Oh, Yeah, I can see that, just like most of the west is in desperate need of rain,

Climate change deniers are still the most stupid people ever. Anyone care to challenge that assertion?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2018
Hummm... so let me get this correct. If it snows in Florida, Alaska is feeling all cozy and warm? So basically global warming has caused a climate level change in the atmospheric patterns that govern and regulate temperatures for the lower 48? Oh, Yeah, I can see that, just like most of the west is in desperate need of rain,

Climate change deniers are still the most stupid people ever. Anyone care to challenge that assertion?

Not stupid. Just - challenged...:-)
unrealone1
1 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2018
Tim Ball - The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science
https://www.youtu...;t=1526s
unrealone1
1 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2018
CSIRO Lacks Empirical Proof: Senator Roberts tables climate report on the CSIRO
https://www.youtu...;t=1719s
The key findings of Senator Roberts' report shows that CSIRO:

1. Refuses to state that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger

2. Does not have empirical evidence proving that carbon dioxide from human activity effects climate

Read more at: https://phys.org/...html#jCp
greenonions1
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 06, 2018
Tim Ball - The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science
Tim Ball is a liar and a fraud. You can google it - here is a quick look - https://www.desmo...-science

so maybe deniers are stupid - or maybe they are 'challenged.' The point for me is that they are impeding the process of learning about our world. Climate change MAY have major ramifications for the 8 billion of us trying to survive on this planet. We are already seeing warning signs - https://cleantech...t-coast/
http://www.dw.com...19465490
Deliberately spreading misinformation - and being smug about it - makes you much more than stupid in my book.
unrealone1
1 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2018
http://www.dailym...ale.html
https://www.thegu...ollution

This toxic lake poisons Chinese farmers, their children and their land. It is what's left behind after making the magnets for Britain's latest wind turbines.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (7) Jan 06, 2018
This toxic lake poisons Chinese farmers, their children and their land. It is what's left behind after making the magnets for Britain's latest wind turbines.
Rare earth minerals are used for many many products - including cars, computers, cell phones etc. etc. Only about 2% of U.S. wind turbines use rare earths. You are spreading lies. http://www.aweabl...t-exist/

You of course would prefer toxic waste from coal plants - which is mostly dumped on poorer communities - https://www.scien...hardest/

All energy sources have an environmental price. Wind and solar are far cleaner than any of the alternatives. Stop spreading lies.
unrealone1
1 / 5 (4) Jan 06, 2018
The wind industry requires an astounding amount of rare earth minerals, primarily neodymium and dysprosium, which are key components of the magnets used in modern wind turbines. Developed by GE in 1982, neodymium magnets are manufactured in many shapes and sizes for numerous purposes. One of their most common uses is in the generators of wind turbines.

Estimates of the exact amount of rare earth minerals in wind turbines vary, but in any case the numbers are staggering. According to the Bulletin of Atomic Sciences, a 2 megawatt (MW) wind turbine contains about 800 pounds of neodymium and 130 pounds of dysprosium. The MIT study cited above estimates that a 2 MW wind turbine contains about 752 pounds of rare earth minerals.

https://institute...inerals/
greenonions1
5 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2018
But as I pointed out to you - only about 2% of turbines in the U.S. are built with rare earth magnets - and that number is not likely to change. Yes - mining rare earth minerals has an environmental cost - as does mining coal, uranium, oil, methane, copper, aluminum etc. etc. etc. Wind and solar are far cleaner overall than any of those alternatives. Stop spreading lies.
unrealone1
1 / 5 (4) Jan 06, 2018
To quantify this in terms of environmental damages, consider that mining one ton of rare earth minerals produces about one ton of radioactive waste, according to the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. In 2012, the U.S. added a record 13,131 MW of wind generating capacity. That means that between 4.9 million pounds (using MIT's estimate) and 6.1 million pounds (using the Bulletin of Atomic Science's estimate) of rare earths were used in wind turbines installed in 2012. It also means that between 4.9 million and 6.1 million pounds of radioactive waste were created to make these wind turbines.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2018
AGWism is for morons, evidence on display.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2018
And how much radio active waste is produced when mining uranium?

http://www.worstp...splay/62

How about coal?

https://www.scien...r-waste/

So the point is that all energy sources have an environmental cost. Wind and solar are far cleaner than any fossil fuels, or nukes. Transitioning to renewables is a win for the environment. Just listing some information on rare earths is meaningless. You have to look at the whole picture. Stop spreading lies.
unrealone1
1 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2018
http://www.altene...lopment/
Rare Earth Element Shortages Threaten Global Wind Power Development
unrealone1
1 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2018
https://www.windp...-supply/
Rare earths, minerals used in windpower technology, could fall into short supply
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2018

Deliberately spreading misinformation - and being smug about it - makes you much more than stupid in my book.


Isn't that called transferance ?
greenonions1
5 / 5 (7) Jan 06, 2018
Isn't that called transferance ?
Maybe - if I had actually spread some misinformation. You are the one spreading lies - and linking to videos of people who are easily shown to be frauds and liars. Please show anywhere that I have given misinformation. Wind and solar are cleaner than fossil fuels - if you look at the big picture - which is of course the relevant perspective. Cherry picking little bits and pieces - makes you a liar. Of course wind is far cleaner than coal. Your side is relegated to total stupidity - take this post from cantdrive
AGWism is for morons, evidence on display
No information debated - no explanation - just a childish cheap shot. Your side loses on the facts - so devolves into stupid posts like that. Posts with no substance - just childish.
unrealone1
1 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2018
Not one University in the world has given an open debate about man made Global Warming.
Wonder why?
greenonions1
5 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2018
Not one University in the world has given an open debate about man made Global Warming.
Wonder why?
Prove it. What do you even mean anyway? I would think that this link contradicts what might be trying to say here - https://www.csupu...ate.html But so what? You are shown up as someone who uses frauds and liars to support your opinion (not understanding that your opinion is a irrelevant as mine - or anyone elses) - and then you just plop these meaningless statements - with no support on the board. You are a typical denier - you have no actual data to support anything you say - and just randomly drop meaningless statements that you have pulled off sites like Breitbart.
unrealone1
1 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2018
greenonions1
5 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2018
Educate yourself before posting

https://climate.n...erature/
http://grist.org/...rifying/
https://www.epa.g...ea-level
http://abcmgr.tam...ication/
http://nsidc.org/...he-year/
https://www.skept...nds.html

Lots of warming....

I notice you were unable to answer the questions I posed above...
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (4) Jan 06, 2018
greenonions1
5 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2018
snoosebaum
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2018
hehe ,fair enough greeny , oh those '' Nazis '',,, , and breaking out of the 'fake news echo chamber '' uh huh , they mean like the actual 'fake news echo chamber' of CNN etc. who actually do lie by omission and otherwise continuously. sorry, u posted more fake news
unrealone1
1 / 5 (6) Jan 07, 2018
Oh Look the "Unadjusted" Data shows no warming?
http://www.bom.go...month=13
"Unadjusted" Data shows no warming?
Please explain?
greenonions1
5 / 5 (8) Jan 07, 2018
Please explain?
Because it is cherry picked data. It is one station. Global data is what you look for when you are talking about global climate. Global data as I showed with at least 5 global references show clear warming.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (7) Jan 07, 2018
sorry, u posted more fake news
Take a leaf out of your great leaders play book eh snoose. If you don't like some facts - call them 'fake news.' Thing is - if you post some rubbish - I'm ok taking a second to point that out. It is interesting to see how the right has to co-opt everything. Fox news/breitbart/daily caller etc. create this amazing echo chamber for you guys. Others point out how you hunker in your echo chamber - and wouldn't know a fact if it bit you. Example - the earth is in a warming trend. Every bit of global data supports that fact. But unreal1 can find a blog to disagree. Hey - I can find a blog that says the earth is flat. So you just co-opt the term echo chamber - and never look at yourself. I don't like cnn either. spend my day reading sites like physorg.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Jan 07, 2018
AGW Cult Bullshit Says: Why there's a big chill in a warmer world

....There, fixed that
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (3) Jan 07, 2018
onions, you manage to get it 180 wrong , great leader tells the truth ,thats reality, not the echo chamber. And every bit of data ? ,,, 'unreal' above posted this excellent link

http://www.bom.go...onth=13k

and you can find the same chart on every weather site that has them.
AND this very article we are commenting on should be the end of AGW as now you have to account for ALL past winters!
greenonions1
5 / 5 (7) Jan 07, 2018
great leader tells the truth
Did you hear that on breitbart? That is one of the easier ones to discredit.
http://time.com/5...-checks/

and you can find the same chart on every weather site that has them
I guess you have looked at every weather station around the world? Here - I picked one at random - http://www.weathe...temp.pdf All the data is there - and if you look at the last column - you can see that in the 150 years or so covered - temps have risen by about 5 degrees F.
Facts show - temps are rising, ice sheets are melting, glaciers are melting, oceans are rising. When it comes to facts - especially global facts - you lose. So as usual - you fall back on some cherry picking - cuz you know better than every meteorological association in the world!!! Talk about echo chamber.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (3) Jan 07, 2018
so u post post a link to a fake news site ? TIME !! LOL

and thanks for backing me up with the other link , yes there has been warming since 1860 but compare 2010-2016 avg yr 56.2 vs 1930-1936 avg 54.1 . and its too bad we can't see those numbers plotted
unrealone1
1 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2018
http://notrickszo...zcR.dpbs
Non-Global Warming: 350 Graphs
350 Cherry's Enjoy!
greenonions1
5 / 5 (6) Jan 07, 2018
snoose
yes there has been warming since 1860
But ureal1 said that
you can find the same chart on every weather site that has them
Which I have just proven to be wrong - with just one random site. At this point you should be admitting that you don't know what you are talking about. The data shows that the climate is warming, the ice sheets are melting, the glaciers are melting, the oceans are rising. This is all consistent with the theory. The facts prove you wrong - so you cherry pick data.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2018
unreal1
350 Cherry's Enjoy!
Keep running off to your echo chamber unreal - it does not prove you right. We know the climate has been warmer in the past. How do we know? Scientists have spent millions of hours studying proxy data. AGW just covers the past couple of hundred years. Where do you think we get graphs like this? http://www.euanme...re-9.png And the same scientists who have done all this amazing work - to give us temperature reconstructions of thousands of years - are the ones telling us that we currently have a problem - and need to be attending to the science - and if you want to spend your life in your echo chamber - reading bias blog sites - go for it - but piss off in terms of wanting to drag the rest of us down to your ignorant level.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (3) Jan 07, 2018
sorry my mistake ,
http://www.bom.go...month=08

is annual highest temp 18?? - present , any month . And i have found monthly avgs for a particular month plotted 18?? - present , no hockey sticks
and glaciers have been melting since 1860's [ yes iknow the new revised AGW has it starting in 1760 or what ever they want ]

snoosebaum
1 / 5 (3) Jan 07, 2018
the battle of the echo chambers , what else do you expect ? we depend on others for information , the point is to always question
greenonions1
5 / 5 (3) Jan 07, 2018
what else do you expect ?
It depends who you are talking to. I look and see where people go for their information. Do they go to science articles, or bloggs. You and unreal1 clearly rely on blogs. Bloggs are garbage. I can show you blogs that say the earth is flat, the earth is 7,000 years old, or evolution is stupid. Another cue is to see if people actually support their position - and what they support it with. Look at your last post. You say glaciers have been melting since 1860's. You provide no support - or elaboration. So - you actually say nothing - but clearly are smug - and think you have said something profound. Here is a reference that talks about the issue - and has some references one could check - obviously you will not do that. Another - https://nsidc.org...ciermelt I would doubt that we have good records going back as far as the 1850's - but there is a lot of data for at least the past 60 years - and the glaciers are melting.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2018
https://wattsupwi...n-a-row/

re glaciers near me , its in the abstract and there was another paper i can't find now

http://www.nrcres.../e07-019

you want skptics to support their position but its setup so that skeptics can't get published or funded , talk about an echo chamber. AGW can't ever, EVER admit it might be wrong. AND if they claim as they do in the paper above that GW causes cold winters then they r done as they have to explain all past winters as being caused by GW
greenonions1
5 / 5 (5) Jan 07, 2018
snoose - You linked to a paper - from a known denier blog. It is not a scientific reference. And what is the point you want to make? If you assert that climate scientists have said that as the globe warms - you will never see snow in the Sahara Desert - then you need to supply relevant references. I have long read in the climate world that the predictions are for more extreme events - here is a site from 5 years ago - https://www.carbo...r-events An article in Physorg - seems to validate this prediction - https://phys.org/...her.html
leetennant
5 / 5 (7) Jan 07, 2018
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/07/cold-snap-brings-snowfall-to-the-sahara-desert-for-the-second-winter-in-a-row/

you want skptics to support their position but its setup so that skeptics can't get published or funded , talk about an echo chamber. AGW can't ever, EVER admit it might be wrong. AND if they claim as they do in the paper above that GW causes cold winters then they r done as they have to explain all past winters as being caused by GW


So there's a conspiracy to stop people from publishing shit they just made up? Yes, there is a conspiracy to stop this! This is absolutely true. You've found us out.

Like, "I think it's the unicorns! Why won't they publish me??! It's a conspiracy!"

Yes, yes that's literally true.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (5) Jan 07, 2018
skeptics can't get published or funded
Again snoose - you make bold statements - but provide no support. This is an interesting discussion of the issue - https://en.wikipe...troversy You will see that there are allegations of distortions in funding from both sides. Read that article - and understand something. There is strong scientific agreement on the issue of climate change - because AGW is supported by the facts. Just as evolution is supported by the facts. So if you are an evolution skeptic - you can expect to have to support your position with research and data - if you want to take on the scientific community. Arguing with you is so interesting. I point out the importance of supporting your assertions - and not using blogs to defend them - and yet you continue right on with both practices. Where is your scientific data? What are you asserting vis a vis your Sarah Desert article. Where is your support for what ever your position is?
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (3) Jan 07, 2018
Rig the game and call yourself a winner , very clever!!

not from a blog , makes no diff to your respnse

http://www.nrcres.../e07-019
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (3) Jan 07, 2018
''publishing shit they just made up''

look in the mirror sport
greenonions1
5 / 5 (7) Jan 07, 2018
Rig the game and call yourself a winner , very clever!!
Who is rigging - and what game are you taking about? I am not playing a game. Maybe that is how you view the world. I am getting up every day - putting one foot in front of the other - and trying to understand.
Fact - the earth is warming. This is evidenced by multiple streams of data - atmospheric temps, ocean temps, ocean levels, ice sheets/glaciers melting etc.
So yes - as leetenant points out - if you want to challenge the scientifically understood reality of climate change - you better have more than a blog. You better have data, and research that withstands the test of science. If you don't like science - fine - go join a religious board - and pedal your mumbo jumbo. The interesting question is - why do you need to spend your time on a site that does promote science - and push junk? It seems bizarrely sick to me.
unrealone1
1 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2018
https://wattsupwi...-page-1/
California Wettest in 1500 years!
Tree rings or more Cherry Picking?
unrealone1
1 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2018
https://wattsupwi...ars-ago/
Yet another paper demonstrates warmer temperatures 1000 years ago and even 2000 years ago
800 papers show warmer in the past
unrealone1
1 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2018
https://wattsupwi...ks-like/
This is what global cooling really looks like – new tree ring study shows 2000 years of cooling
All records show cooling, tree ring, river bead, ocean bed, all show cooling for 7000 years
unrealone1
1 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2018
https://www.mercu...sts-say/
Flick to page 3 to get the "GRAPH"
California Wettest in 1500 years
unrealone1
1 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2018
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 08, 2018
Meanwhile, Australia has record high temperatures:117F.

Because it's ***GLOBAL*** warming.

#climatecranks are idiots.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (5) Jan 08, 2018
unreal1
Yet another paper demonstrates warmer temperatures 1000 years ago
No one is saying that it has not been warmer in the past. The medieval warm period has been studied at great length. What do you think you have told us? You run to wattsup - the infamous denier blogg. I keep telling you that if you get all your information from your echo chamber - you become known as for not understanding science. You keep spamming the site with links - but you never make a point. We know it has been warmer in the past - so what?????? AGW does not say it has never been warmer. Where do you think proxy data comes from? The scientists who are telling us about the current situation - are part of the same community who developed all the proxy data. It is called science. What do you think you have told us???????
greenonions1
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 08, 2018
unreal and snoose - if you want to educate yourselves - look at this proxy data - https://www.clima...HrOTBQaE
See - we know it has been warmer in the past. We know it has been cooling for thousands of years. How do we know? From proxy data - brought to us through science.
Now - you explain the driver of the current warming trend - that is very evident in the graph. That is the crux of AGW.
unrealone1
1 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2018
https://www.youtu...xfLojkMc
Blizzards in USA for decades during mini ice age predicts Astrophysicist-Meteorologist
unrealone1
1 / 5 (5) Jan 08, 2018
The Master of Weather Prediction - Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn Says Climate Change is Junk Science
https://www.youtu...5zC8jhVI
Sun Drives Climate
gkam
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 08, 2018
Greenie, they have made their decisions based on emotion.

Rationality will not work.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2018
'''Now - you explain the driver of the current warming trend - that is very evident in the graph. That is the crux of AGW. '

yes i want you to explain that from 1800's yes i know!, a tiny amount of coal and horse farts

snoosebaum
1 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2018
.'''' Meanwhile, Australia has record high temperatures:117F.

Because it's ***GLOBAL*** warming.

#climatecranks are idiots.'''

http://www.bom.gov.au/

unrealone1
1 / 5 (5) Jan 08, 2018
AUSTRALIAN cities are 5C hotter compared to surrounding areas because of a phenomenon known as the 'Urban Island Heat' effect that could eventually turn them into death traps.
http://www.news.c...4fa546bf
SYDNEY HEAT ISLAND EFFECT is 5 C
UHI effect, look it up..
gkam
3 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2018
Yes, we have known about the phenomenon for decades. That is why some cities are encouraging living roofs.
TrollBane
5 / 5 (7) Jan 08, 2018
The unrealone still doing his best to cherry-pick information to cause unwarranted doubt about the pattern of global warming.

What an actual skeptic said about his eventual acceptance of the evidence for the existence of and human responsibility for climate change/AGW, including the old arguments about placement of measuring stations. http://www.nytime...tic.html
Stevepidge
1 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2018
Global warming. Global Cooling. Who gives a shit, every single one of you are arguing about something that is both meaningless and trivial. Just mind your own business before you die of an anuerysm during your morning poop.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2018
troll , yes muller , he used all the scientifically approved mthods and got the same result, big surprise . ie he set out to discover the ''temperature of the earth'' , some meaningless avg approximation to be set in stone as absolute truth. Meanwhile anybody can go look at the flat charts.

Hey Steve , right on man
gkam
1 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2018
This is a science site. When assessing posts, it is most useful to determine credibility. I want to thank Stevepidge for speaking in native dialect and obviating the need for references.
unrealone1
1 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2018
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.
"The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away," Zwally said. "But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for."
https://www.nasa....n-losses
unrealone1
1 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2018
So what would prove Global Warming is over?
Record Snow Record Cold?
Sahara Desert covered in 15 inches of SNOW as freak weather blankets sand dunes.
It is the second time snow has hit in nearly 40 years, with a dusting also recorded in December 2016.
https://www.expre...s-photos
leetennant
5 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2018
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.


So this "new study" is actually from 2015 and is about ice cover to 2008 - ten years ago? And it shows that the gains are already being reversed? And it confirms sea level rises? And it says that Antarctica was not contributing to sea level rises YET but soon would once ice melt increased?

I also love that the quote you use actually goes like this:

The mass gain from the thickening of East Antarctica remained steady from 1992 to 2008 at 200 billion tons per year, *while the ice losses from the coastal regions of West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula increased by 65 billion tons per year.*
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2018
so AGW causes winter in 1860 1901 etc
unrealone1
1 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2018
http://www.news.c...63a3cd2f
NASA study suggests an Antarctic supervolcano could make the ice sheet 'vulnerable'
unrealone1
1 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2018
Volcano 'as powerful as Yellowstone' MELTS ice beneath Antarctica
A GIGANTIC volcano which could be as powerful as the dreaded Yellowstone is melting Antarctic ice from beneath the surface, Nasa scientists have revealed
https://www.expre...e-change
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2018
Meanwhile, Australia has record high temperatures:117F.

Because it's ***GLOBAL*** warming.

#climatecranks are idiots.''

it was fake news

http://joannenova...ke-news/
greenonions1
5 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2018
snoosebaum
yes i want you to explain that from 1800's yes i know!, a tiny amount of coal and horse farts
Well - why don't you show me some scientific data - that tells us how much the climate warmed back in the 1800's. You yet again try to have a discussion - about a subject you clearly know nothing - and you provide no support for any assertion that you may be trying to make. Here is an interesting science article - not something pulled from your bias blog sites - that talks about the issue of early industrialization and warming. https://www.natur...ure19082 The study took me 5 minutes to find using google. You don't even know how to use google - and prefer to be spoon fed by your echo chamber blog sites. You would not know cherry picking if it bit you. You just know how to regurgitate cherry picked blogs. You can never answer the relevant question - which is 'exactly what point are you trying to make here-and what science are you looking at?' Cont.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (5) Jan 08, 2018
cont . Here is what I saw as a relevant quote from the research - that pertains to your non question about early signs of climate change - that is clear evidence that you know nothing - but have no conscience about pissing on science and progress.
instrumental records are too short to comprehensively assess anthropogenic climate change and that, in some regions, about 180 years of industrial-era warming has already caused surface temperatures to emerge above pre-industrial values, even when taking natural variability into account


Your reference? Your explanation for the current warming trend?
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2018
from your reference
;

''Our findings imply that instrumental records are too short to comprehensively assess anthropogenic climate change and that, in some regions, about 180 years of industrial-era warming has already caused surface temperatures to emerge above pre-industrial values, even when taking natural variability into account.''

so what was the cause of that ? horse farts ? you tell me you are the expert and if you think ' industrial era warming '' means co2 , low co2 values at that time are integral to your AGW theory
greenonions1
5 / 5 (5) Jan 08, 2018
so what was the cause of that

The study, published Wednesday in the journal Nature, suggests that Earth may have warmed about a third of a degree Fahrenheit, or 0.2 degrees Celsius, between 1850 and 1880. Industrial greenhouse gas emissions were the cause of the warming, just as they are now, though the change was significantly slower back then


Now - I answered your question. But you consistently refuse to answer any questions given back. Where is your data regarding the early warming " from 1800's." From the 1800's is your assertion - and I want to see the science you are referring to that shows there was warming in the 1800's. I have shown you research that talks about warming in the second half of the 19th century. Over and over you and unreal make stupid assertions. When pushed for any science to support those assertions - you just change the subject. I don't care that people like you are ignorant of science - I care that you piss on science.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2018
leetennant
5 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2018
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/cjes/article-abstract/44/9/1215/54094


What? This is glacial history in ONE PARK.
leetennant
5 / 5 (7) Jan 08, 2018
Meanwhile, Australia has record high temperatures:117F.

Because it's ***GLOBAL*** warming.

#climatecranks are idiots.''

it was fake news

http://joannenova...ke-news/


This Australian says you are talking out of your ass. You trying being here this last weekend. It was 47% in Sydney - 20 degrees above the mean for February. The previous high was 42 degrees in 1926. Roads melted. There were widespread blackouts.

It was "only" 40 degrees where I lived. It was basically like living in an fan-forced oven.

I can't believe you're quoting that Heartland-funded denier over the actual bureau of meteorology. Unfuckingbelievable.
unrealone1
1 / 5 (5) Jan 09, 2018
AUSTRALIAN cities are 5C hotter compared to surrounding areas because of a phenomenon known as the 'Urban Island Heat' effect that could eventually turn them into death traps.

SYDNEY HEAT ISLAND EFFECT is 5 C UHI effect, look it up..
Sydney 47C is FAKE news, it's the UHI effect causing 5C hotter that it was 150 years ago
Yes a piece of concrete that can hold 5 Million people will be 5C hotter than the original site 150 years ago
So the Sydney 47C was the UHI effect of an extra 5C just from man made concrete the size of Sydney.
That's science. UHI not CO2.
http://www.news.c...4fa546bf
No mention of the UHI from the BOM in Australia?...
leetennant
5 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2018
AUSTRALIAN cities are 5C hotter compared to surrounding areas because of a phenomenon known as the 'Urban Island Heat' effect that could eventually turn them into death traps.

SYDNEY HEAT ISLAND EFFECT is 5 C UHI effect, look it up..
Sydney 47C is FAKE news, it's the UHI effect causing 5C hotter that it was 150 years ago
Yes a piece of concrete that can hold 5 Million people will be 5C hotter than the original site 150 years ago
So the Sydney 47C was the UHI effect of an extra 5C just from man made concrete the size of Sydney.
That's science. UHI not CO2.
http://www.news.c...4fa546bf
No mention of the UHI from the BOM in Australia?...


Urban areas didn't exist before now. That's how you know this is true.
unrealone1
1 / 5 (7) Jan 09, 2018
The results confirm the warmth of the Eemian climate: ratios of oxygen and nitrogen isotopes in the core show that some 6,000 years after the onset of the Eemian, local temperatures reached about 8 °C above the present-day annual average of roughly −25 °C.
110,00 years ago it was 8°C hotter?
So it was 8°C hotter than today (Greenland) with lower CO2? Wow!
https://www.natur...-1.12265
leetennant
5 / 5 (8) Jan 09, 2018
This is what we call cherry picking. I'm not going to respond anymore. Taking random bits and pieces of data without context and going, "Look, it was warmer here once" and "look, glaciers melted here once" and "look, blah blah" is not a coherent response to information about a global system over time.
Half of what you post either doesn't say what you claim it does or is just cobbled together denial from sources literally funded by fossil fuel companies.

The Jo Nova piece is a classic example. She says "it wasn't 47 but the reason it looked like it was 47 was only because of faulty gauges and the reason it was definitely 47 was because of the heat island effect". So, which is it? 47 and heat island effect? Not really 47 but looks liked 47 because of faulty gauges? Not 47 at all? Take your pick. This is what funded denial looks like and it's transparent as hell. As are your posts.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (12) Jan 09, 2018
leetennant
I'm not going to respond anymore
I am out on this one too pal. I guess sometimes we get sucked into trying to present logic - but it never works... You can reason all you want - and it is just met with a link to some blog, or an article that does not prove anything on it's own. Maybe it helps us understand that they don't understand science - and are really just here is cause chaos. I am beginning to see it as similar to white supremacy. Logic does not factor into it.

Best to you.....
unrealone1
1 / 5 (9) Jan 09, 2018
https://trove.nla.../8910413
122°F or 50°C on 11 Jan 1939 as reported in the Windsor and Richmond Gazette Fri 13 Jan 1939 Page 3 Sweltering Week Sets New Hawkesbury District Record.
Sydney was Hotter on Jan 11 1939: 50°C
Simple science.
How could the BOM be wrong with adjusted data?
snoosebaum
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 09, 2018
What? This is glacial history in ONE PARK. !!! gack !

hmm ,,if u read the article [and i have others] it says the patterns of advance retreat match other areas in NA

and i'm still waiting to hear how GW caused all the past winters since GW started in 1830.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (9) Jan 09, 2018
he Jo Nova piece is a classic example. She says "it wasn't 47 but the reason it looked like it was 47 was only because of faulty gauges and the reason it was definitely 47 was because of the heat island effect". So, which is it? 47 and heat island effect? Not really 47 but looks liked 47 because of faulty gauges? Not 47 at all? Take your pick. This is what funded denial looks like and it's transparent as hell. As are your posts. '''

todays weather

http://www.bom.gov.au/
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (7) Jan 09, 2018
I am beginning to see it as similar to white supremacy. Logic does not factor into it.'''

LOL , we have an SJW !, indeed then logic 'does not factor in ' in fact logic is to be banned !
TrollBane
5 / 5 (10) Jan 09, 2018
"there are plenty of papers out there linking sunspots to clouds and temperature change" Yes, and there are plenty of papers linking Bigfoot to aliens and posterior probing. Your point?
HeloMenelo
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 11, 2018
Aaa guess who's back...! :D looks like i missed out on the circus, snooselose aka antigoracle sockpuppet and his riot of other socks on here never missing a moment to prove their stupidity to the world, Greenonions, now you know why this goon and is socpuppets keep coming back, to prove to the world he is very much still dumber as a brick. Going to be a fun season to attend seeing this clown ever so making a fool of himself and his associates lol...
unrealone1
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 11, 2018
Remember Al Gore and the "Venus" quote, CO2 traps heat, right?
Professor Hawking said US President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, has doomed Earth to one day become uninhabitable.

And repeating his warning, the physicist said climate change deniers should look to Venus which is now a boiling planet
https://www.expre...er-venus

Benni
1 / 5 (6) Jan 11, 2018
Remember Al Gore and the "Venus" quote, CO2 traps heat, right?
Professor Hawking said US President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, has doomed Earth to one day become uninhabitable.

And repeating his warning, the physicist said climate change deniers should look to Venus which is now a boiling planet


But, but, but, Venus is closer to the Sun........Oh, yeah, wait a minute here, I just recalled one of the AGW arguments is that the Sun has nothing to do with CLIMATE CHANGE on Earth where the percentage difference of CO2 on Venus & Mars is 95% of the atmospheric content whereas on Earth it is 0.04%.

Odd isn't it? How we are sandwiched between two planets with 95% CO2 with oddly different temperature characteristics, but somehow Earth's 0.04% rising to 0.05% will create a greenhouse here. or will it be 0.06%? 0.07%?

Hey, genius Hawking, what's the % cutout level that makes us look like Venus?
Multivac jr_
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 11, 2018
The arrogantly-dense tinfoil hattery, scientific ignorance, and general denial-derp in these comments is truly breathtaking to behold. I wonder who they think they're fooling (besides themselves)?
Multivac jr_
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 11, 2018
I am beginning to see it as similar to white supremacy. Logic does not factor into it.'''

LOL , we have an SJW !, indeed then logic 'does not factor in ' in fact logic is to be banned !


Oh the irony...
highzone
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 11, 2018
Remember Al Gore and the "Venus" quote, CO2 traps heat, right?
Professor Hawking said US President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, has doomed Earth to one day become uninhabitable.

And repeating his warning, the physicist said climate change deniers should look to Venus which is now a boiling planet


But, but, but, Venus is closer to the Sun........Oh, yeah, wait a minute here, I just recalled one of the ..


Pitty you can't recall even 1 example out of the infinite number of scientific examples proving Climate Change by Humans has been happening all along, proving your utterly dumb logic false on a daily basis. But then again, Antigoracle likes to keep his socks from expanding their understanding as he himself has is as dumb as a brick.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Jan 11, 2018
Remember Al Gore and the "Venus" quote, CO2 traps heat, right?
Hawking said US President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, has doomed Earth to one day become uninhabitable.

And repeating his warning, the physicist said climate change deniers should look to Venus which is now a boiling planet


But, but, but, Venus is closer to the Sun........Oh, yeah, wait a minute here, I just recalled one of the ..


Pitty you can't recall even 1 example out of the infinite number of scientific examples proving Climate Change by Humans has been happening all along, proving your utterly dumb logic false on a daily basis. But then again, Antigoracle likes to keep his socks from expanding their understanding as he himself has is as dumb as a brick.


The "dumb false logic" arises from those, such as yourself, who has never seen a Rate of Reaction Equation you could solve in Chemistry Class, I have, 3 semesters worth of it.

unrealone1
1 / 5 (2) Jan 12, 2018
Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past. Monday, 20 March 2000
Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.
https://web.archi...017.html

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.??
highzone
5 / 5 (9) Jan 12, 2018


The "dumb false logic" arises from those, such as yourself, who has never seen a Rate of Reaction Equation you could solve in Chemistry Class, I have, 3 semesters worth of it.


Yet you can't even understand one percent of the infinate and overwhelming evidence provided over decades that Human Induced Climate change is Reality right now. Is the math over your head or are you just plain Dumb and Stupid ?
unrealone1
1 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2018
Climate Change models do not work for the past?
Only in the future do the IPCC models work, wayyy into the future.
Ops the IPCC models do not work for the future or have they been shown to work in the past?
There is no best fit IPCC model for the past climate change for the past 7000 years.
Do a search IPCC models fail.
unrealone1
1 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2018

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.