Wall - you are now below the minimum level at which cany kind of sensible discussion is possible.

__________________
'And if you tolerate this, then you children will be next' The Manics

LOLOLOL....you are such a silly sorry-ass retard, walleyed.....and sooooo delusional......LOLOL.....you're a hoot.....

(Personally highlighted for the benefit of thick skulled denier cult retards)

2012 Was 9th Warmest Year on Record, Says NASA
ABC News
By Ned Potter
Jan 15, 2013
(excerpts)
The year 2012 was the ninth warmest globally since record keeping began in 1880, said climate scientists today from NASA. NOAA, crunching the numbers slightly differently, said 2012 was the tenth warmest year, and both agencies said a warming pattern has continued since the middle of the 20th century. NASA had already said last week that for the contiguous United States, 2012 was the warmest year ever recorded. The hottest years on record for the planet, it said, were 2005 and 2010. “One more year of numbers isn’t in itself significant,” said Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in a statement. “What matters is this decade is warmer than the last decade, and that decade was warmer than the decade before. The planet is warming. The reason it’s warming is because we are pumping increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”

NOAA and NASA scientists said the global temperature in 2012 was moderated by relatively cool temperatures in Alaska, Canada and parts of Asia, and there was also a La Nina — a giant patch of cool water that periodically replaces warmer water in the equatorial Pacific. But NASA also pointed out that 2012 was a year of extremes, with drought and unusual summer heat, for example, afflicting much of the U.S. “Including 2012, all 12 years to date in the 21st century rank among the 14 warmest in the 133-year period of record,” NOAA said. “Only one year in the 20th century — 1998 — was warmer than 2012.”






There is no "how" because no such "meme" was ever current in the climate science community. Climate science has never claimed that there would be no winters or an absence of snow in winter any time soon, even if one guy in Britain got a little over-enthusiastic a few years ago about the possibility of 'snow' vanishing soon. Do you even understand what the term 'meme' actually means, you senile old fool?






LOLOLOLOL.....how ironic.....you begin with an bald-faced "outright lie" about your imaginary "cooling", which is apparently only visible to insane brainwashed denier cultists and mad dogs.......and then you deceitfully label as "an outright lie" the documented and checkable fact that climate scientists were in fact predicting the probability of regional variations in the AGW driven climate changes, with some areas warming more, others less and some even cooling temporarily as the usual atmospheric wind patterns like the jet stream get moved around and ocean current patterns perhaps change. Here's a clue, little retard, the "globe" did not start "cooling", not in this millenium. Warming continues, of both the atmosphere and the oceans and that fact is very visible in the melting of the permafrost in the northern regions and the melting of the mountain glaciers all around the world, and the melting of the floating ice sheets in Antarctica.





Better watch it there, walleyed, you're starting to talk to yourself again. Then again, perhaps your sub-conscious mind can see how screwed up and brainwashed your normal semi-conscious mind is and it is trying to communicate with you this way. Maybe it wants to slap you silly and try to snap you out of this hypnotic trance that you're in.

BTW, old boy, too bad about your little astroturfed cult of reality denial going down the tubes like beer vomit at a frat party.

__________________
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy;
that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."-- John Kenneth Galbraith

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences. - Sir Winston Churchill

Climate "scientists" prefer to make statements like "warmer" and "more severe". They don`t like to quantify "more severe", "extreme" etc.
They only thing they do quantify is "average temperature anomaly" and the value they assign is 1 C ...(which is a statistics cheat and a fabrication anyway)
Let`s assume that`s true that it is 1 C and do the math what we get with the Clausius–Clapeyron equation for the water vapor pressure increase when the temperature increases from 20 C to 21 C.
at 20 C vP H2O = 17.51 mmHg and at 21 C it is 18.62 mmHg (Torr) saturated vapor pressure.
So let`s whip up a "perfect storm" and use the extreme maximum possible pressure drop if all the moisture of air saturated with a 100% vapor pressure condenses.
The Volume shrinks as the moisture condenses and that`s what`s causing a storm, sucking in air into the eye of a hurricane or tornadoes.
At 760 Torr,...standard pressure and 20 C the pressure & volume drops by 2.27 % and at a "temperature anomaly" of 21 C by 2.47 %.
So "extreme" and "more severe" pans out to be 0.2 % "more severe" for a 1 C "anomaly" than it would have been what climate "scientists" call "normal".
A +1 C "anomaly" does not make a storm "more extreme" or "more severe".
The thing that does determine how violent a storm will be, is the rate at which the moisture condenses per time.. and that is pegged to the rate of cooling. The faster moist air cools & condenses the more violent the event. So how exactly does CO2 which is said to slow the rate of cooling make storms "more severe"..???

__________________

I`m after the bear facts and don't give a damn about consensus opinion

every time I see the title of this thread I expect it to be about atmospheric physics but it is just the usual AGW BS about weather.

smaller temperature differentials leave less energy available to power wild storms. simply check out the weather during the Little Ice Age, when weather really was extreme.

__________________
call me a climate dissident

"The dissident temperament has been present in all times and places, though only ever among a small minority of citizens. Its characteristic is a cast of mind that, presented with a proposition about the world, has little interest in where that proposition originated, or how popular it is, or how many powerful and credentialed persons have assented to it, or what may be lost in the way of property, status, or even life, in denying it. To the dissident, the only thing worth pondering about the proposition is, is it true? If it is, then no king's command can falsify it; and if it is not, then not even the assent of a hundred million will make it true." --the derb

Ian C -

I share your frustation. Whatever the thread topic, every "discussion" is the same. It is frustrating.

__________________
'And if you tolerate this, then you children will be next' The Manics

SkS is creating a strawman that does not reflect the skeptical position. global CO2 has gone up faster than expected while temps have been flat for over a decade. models did not expect this and many famous climate science luminaries have continued to backtrack on their predictions that warming could only stop for a decade, then 15 years, then 17 years, and now the head of the IPCC has said 30 or 40 years, just so they cannot be held accountable for their failures.



personally I like this graph because to me it looks like pre-1998 temps were somewhat stable with natural variation up and down, then it looks like something 'bumped' the thermostat at the 1998 mega El Nino, then post 1998 temps have been stable with natural up and downs since then.

what bumped the thermostat? I dont know, perhaps the reaction to Pinatubo. there are certainly known 'attractor' balance points in systems, climate or otherwise.

CO2 is not the control knob for climate or temperature.

__________________
call me a climate dissident

"The dissident temperament has been present in all times and places, though only ever among a small minority of citizens. Its characteristic is a cast of mind that, presented with a proposition about the world, has little interest in where that proposition originated, or how popular it is, or how many powerful and credentialed persons have assented to it, or what may be lost in the way of property, status, or even life, in denying it. To the dissident, the only thing worth pondering about the proposition is, is it true? If it is, then no king's command can falsify it; and if it is not, then not even the assent of a hundred million will make it true." --the derb

I actually would like to see a (civil) discussion of atmospheric physics. it would point out the large uncertainties that are present in our understanding of what is going on. I vote for Miskolski (sp) simply because his theory is so beautiful and elegant that it should be true. hahahaha

__________________
call me a climate dissident

"The dissident temperament has been present in all times and places, though only ever among a small minority of citizens. Its characteristic is a cast of mind that, presented with a proposition about the world, has little interest in where that proposition originated, or how popular it is, or how many powerful and credentialed persons have assented to it, or what may be lost in the way of property, status, or even life, in denying it. To the dissident, the only thing worth pondering about the proposition is, is it true? If it is, then no king's command can falsify it; and if it is not, then not even the assent of a hundred million will make it true." --the derb

You just re-phrased what I`ve been saying. Simply stating "extreme" is a qualitative assertion which evades doing the math to show the quantity.
And when You do the math the vapor pressure curve for H2O applies to an air mass the same as it does to water in a psychrometric vapor pressure instrument. Dry air expands or shrinks only by 1/273 rd. per degree delta K and with a 100% water vapor saturation pressure it shrinks by the partial pressure component %.age of the total pressure carried by the water vapor.
"Extreme storms" are not caused while water evaporates, they happen when the evaporated water/ air mixture is rapidly cooled.
And to evaporate water quicker raising the "average temperature" by only 1 C does not have anywhere near the effect an increased airflow has.
You can try that out the next time You do Your laundry. Plug up the lint screen and observe how the safety thermostat cuts the power because the drum overheats,...but the clothes are just as wet as before.
The same laws are at play for wind speed and a large body of water or moist terrain. Just "warmer" by itself and only by 1C has no more than 0.2 % impact at standard pressure and temperature

__________________

I`m after the bear facts and don't give a damn about consensus opinion

Bay Area environmental group proposes hybrid levees for bay - ContraCostaTimes.com

At least real science is allowing for real efforts to mitgate the effect of climate change, no matter what the cause.

__________________
"One guy TRIES to use shoe bomb and everyone at the airport now has to take shoes off. 31 school shootings since Columbine, but no change."
Michelle‏@MichelleLaw


I support repeal of Citizens United v. FEC and I support campaign finance reform!

"THE LIFE OF THE LAW HAS NOT BEEN LOGIC; IT HAS BEEN EXPERIENCE"
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
The Common Law, 1881

I disagree. I am told here everyday that "it is not warming, it has not warmed since 2010" or whatever the blogs say. The mantra is that temperatures are stable, and thus not rising.

In fact, temperatures are rising, but are rising in waves and plateaus and not in a smooth, even line.

__________________
'And if you tolerate this, then you children will be next' The Manics

then you are not reading the skeptics first hand but rather are listening to warmer's restatements that distort what is being said. of course both sides do that.

temps have been warming since the LIA. a gentle rise with almost sine-like natural variation, probably due to ocean currents, etc. CO2 theory basically demands that temps be in lock step with CO2 levels and that has proven to be false. I'll try to find the graph I am talking about

__________________
call me a climate dissident

"The dissident temperament has been present in all times and places, though only ever among a small minority of citizens. Its characteristic is a cast of mind that, presented with a proposition about the world, has little interest in where that proposition originated, or how popular it is, or how many powerful and credentialed persons have assented to it, or what may be lost in the way of property, status, or even life, in denying it. To the dissident, the only thing worth pondering about the proposition is, is it true? If it is, then no king's command can falsify it; and if it is not, then not even the assent of a hundred million will make it true." --the derb

Ian C -

I'm going largely by what I see posted here by the geniuses that are Oddball, Frank, SSDD and the Wailing Wall. I don't look at what sceptics say anywhere else.



This simply does not look like a natural variation to me - or to anyone else, I suspect.



I do not see the natural increase since the LIA that you mention.

__________________
'And if you tolerate this, then you children will be next' The Manics

this is not exactly the one I was looking for but it gives the general idea



I find it hard to believe that anyone would not read both sides of the story. do you expect the pro AGW crowd to point out the flaws on their side? or vice versa?

__________________
call me a climate dissident

"The dissident temperament has been present in all times and places, though only ever among a small minority of citizens. Its characteristic is a cast of mind that, presented with a proposition about the world, has little interest in where that proposition originated, or how popular it is, or how many powerful and credentialed persons have assented to it, or what may be lost in the way of property, status, or even life, in denying it. To the dissident, the only thing worth pondering about the proposition is, is it true? If it is, then no king's command can falsify it; and if it is not, then not even the assent of a hundred million will make it true." --the derb

Good! I've been trying to sink to your subterranean level for weeks now. Glad to see I have finally found your absurdly low level.

__________________
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman

'Yea, Though I Fly Through the Valley of the Shadow of Death, I Shall Fear No Evil. For I am at 50,000 Feet and Climbing.'
- Sign over SR71 Wing Ops-

"He who asserts must also prove" Aristotle


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

super skeptic McIntyre on Muller. First Thoughts on BEST « Climate Audit

does this match your mental image Saigon?

__________________
call me a climate dissident

"The dissident temperament has been present in all times and places, though only ever among a small minority of citizens. Its characteristic is a cast of mind that, presented with a proposition about the world, has little interest in where that proposition originated, or how popular it is, or how many powerful and credentialed persons have assented to it, or what may be lost in the way of property, status, or even life, in denying it. To the dissident, the only thing worth pondering about the proposition is, is it true? If it is, then no king's command can falsify it; and if it is not, then not even the assent of a hundred million will make it true." --the derb