167 Consecutive Days Below Freezing

[Old Rocks]

U.S. Drought Monitor

The west has had a series of droughts, and our forests and crops are paying the price.

Moron...

La Niña Pattern. nothin to see here or worry about... Natural Variation..

It sounds like somebody is in denial. I understand that the Sahara used to be a verdant rain forest, things change. That took thousands of years. Now? it's a matter of decades...i am seeing it, and heartily agree it's human caused. 7 billion people are having effects in more ways than just weather, too. Let's just ignore the facts and whistle past the graveyard.

You can "believe" anything you wish. That is the way religion works. However, in the realm of science it doesn't matter what you believe, but you can observe. And the reality is that to date there is no observed scientific data that supports the theory of AGW. None. There's a whole lot of computer derived fiction, but nothing that is actually observed.

That works both ways, you can ignore the facts and cherry pick pseudoscientific babble and deceive yourself. it's a free country. So who should I believe? My own fist hand imperial experience, or some stuff somebody spouts on the internet?

I challenge anyone to post one prediction made about global warming that fits reality. Just one.

LOL OK boy, here you go

1. We will see more extreme weather events in the next decade than we have seen in any decade since the Industrial Revolution.

2. The Arctic Ice will continue to decline, and possibly have an ice free Arctic ocean for a brief time in September in the next decade, for sure, by the decade after that.

3. The deniers will lie about all of the above as it happens.

 

[Old Rocks]

I am a sentimental old fool, no argument there. And I am a hardnosed realist, as well. So you resort to name calling, is that the new scientific method? Dazzle them with malarkey or bash them if they don't agree? Well, nice. Smooth. But it isn't working. Like I said before, who do I believe? My own two peepers or your...stuff?

Name one climate change prediction that even came close to getting it right. There is you evidence. Because they did not even get it right one time. Your global warming BS is nothing but computer models based on falsified data. It's been proven wrong, yet you still cling to it like a drowning woman. Why?

Dumb fuck, I have done so repeatedly. So, here we go again, from 1981;

Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

In 2007, the Northwest Passage opened up for the first time. In 2016, a 1000 passenger luxury cruise ship transited the passage. And the rest of the predictions have also been accurate.

 

[Old Rocks]

I am a sentimental old fool, no argument there. And I am a hardnosed realist, as well. So you resort to name calling, is that the new scientific method? Dazzle them with malarkey or bash them if they don't agree? Well, nice. Smooth. But it isn't working. Like I said before, who do I believe? My own two peepers or your...stuff?

Name one climate change prediction that even came close to getting it right. There is you evidence. Because they did not even get it right one time. Your global warming BS is nothing but computer models based on falsified data. It's been proven wrong, yet you still cling to it like a drowning woman. Why?

I can't. Science doesn't predict. Extrapolate, plenty, love ya kiddo. Why are you so hostile?

Per Decade warming trend = FAILED

"Hot spot" = FAILED

Increasing storminess = FAILED

Decreasing cold and Snowfall = FAILED

One FAILURE was enough 4 becomes a steam roll.

Why do you continue to defend the AGW conjecture?

^^^^Borrowed from sunsettommy.

And I ask you again. Name one prediction that climate change got right. The climate models have failed repeatedly. How many times do they have to be wrong before you get a clue?

God, you are a stupid bastard. Old Lady is a lady, and does not call you what you deserve. I am not a gentleman. I am nearly 75 years old and still working as a millwright in a steel mill. And my hobby is geology, so I have been in the mountain ranges of the West since I started driving in the early '60's. And I have seen the glaciers and snowfields get smaller every decade in all the mountain ranges of the West. Here is a graph of extreme weather events by year;

And 2017 would go right off that chart.

 

[Old Rocks]

I am a sentimental old fool, no argument there. And I am a hardnosed realist, as well. So you resort to name calling, is that the new scientific method? Dazzle them with malarkey or bash them if they don't agree? Well, nice. Smooth. But it isn't working. Like I said before, who do I believe? My own two peepers or your...stuff?

Name one climate change prediction that even came close to getting it right. There is you evidence. Because they did not even get it right one time. Your global warming BS is nothing but computer models based on falsified data. It's been proven wrong, yet you still cling to it like a drowning woman. Why?

I can't. Science doesn't predict. Extrapolate, plenty, love ya kiddo. Why are you so hostile?

Per Decade warming trend = FAILED

"Hot spot" = FAILED

Increasing storminess = FAILED

Decreasing cold and Snowfall = FAILED

One FAILURE was enough 4 becomes a steam roll.

Why do you continue to defend the AGW conjecture?

^^^^Borrowed from sunsettommy.

And I ask you again. Name one prediction that climate change got right. The climate models have failed repeatedly. How many times do they have to be wrong before you get a clue?

Warming trend?

UAH Global Temperature Update for March, 2018: +0.24 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD

Climate Change: Global Temperature | NOAA Climate.gov

 

[westwall]

Moron...

La Niña Pattern. nothin to see here or worry about... Natural Variation..

It sounds like somebody is in denial. I understand that the Sahara used to be a verdant rain forest, things change. That took thousands of years. Now? it's a matter of decades...i am seeing it, and heartily agree it's human caused. 7 billion people are having effects in more ways than just weather, too. Let's just ignore the facts and whistle past the graveyard.

You can "believe" anything you wish. That is the way religion works. However, in the realm of science it doesn't matter what you believe, but you can observe. And the reality is that to date there is no observed scientific data that supports the theory of AGW. None. There's a whole lot of computer derived fiction, but nothing that is actually observed.

That works both ways, you can ignore the facts and cherry pick pseudoscientific babble and deceive yourself. it's a free country. So who should I believe? My own fist hand imperial experience, or some stuff somebody spouts on the internet?

I challenge anyone to post one prediction made about global warming that fits reality. Just one.

LOL OK boy, here you go

1. We will see more extreme weather events in the next decade than we have seen in any decade since the Industrial Revolution.

2. The Arctic Ice will continue to decline, and possibly have an ice free Arctic ocean for a brief time in September in the next decade, for sure, by the decade after that.

3. The deniers will lie about all of the above as it happens.

!. Define an "extreme weather event". Until you get a storm system that once again completely fills up the Central Valley of CA, as happened waay the hell back in 1862, you are orders of magnitude below any of the extreme weather events of the past.

2. It was supposed to be ice free by 2013 so I won't hold my breath.

3. Sceptics don't need to lie about anything. Every prediction (other than the most vague) that the AGW crowd has ever made has been wrong.

 

[westwall]

U.S. Drought Monitor

The west has had a series of droughts, and our forests and crops are paying the price.

Moron...

La Niña Pattern. nothin to see here or worry about... Natural Variation..

It sounds like somebody is in denial. I understand that the Sahara used to be a verdant rain forest, things change. That took thousands of years. Now? it's a matter of decades...i am seeing it, and heartily agree it's human caused. 7 billion people are having effects in more ways than just weather, too. Let's just ignore the facts and whistle past the graveyard.

You can "believe" anything you wish. That is the way religion works. However, in the realm of science it doesn't matter what you believe, but you can observe. And the reality is that to date there is no observed scientific data that supports the theory of AGW. None. There's a whole lot of computer derived fiction, but nothing that is actually observed.

That works both ways, you can ignore the facts and cherry pick pseudoscientific babble and deceive yourself. it's a free country. So who should I believe? My own fist hand imperial experience, or some stuff somebody spouts on the internet?

I think you are referring to empirical, and even there you are wrong. YOUR experience is called "anecdotal" and is not considered evidence because what you observe will be very different from what another person in your area will observe. That's why scientific study, at least the hard sciences, rely on MEASURABLE data. It may be warm where you are right now, but where I am right now it is 29 degrees and we have a light snow coming down. And, my experience, though factual, has no bearing on whether man caused global cooling is occurring.

Do you understand the reason why measurable data is the only data that matters?

 

[skookerasbil]

I am a sentimental old fool, no argument there. And I am a hardnosed realist, as well. So you resort to name calling, is that the new scientific method? Dazzle them with malarkey or bash them if they don't agree? Well, nice. Smooth. But it isn't working. Like I said before, who do I believe? My own two peepers or your...stuff?

Name one climate change prediction that even came close to getting it right. There is you evidence. Because they did not even get it right one time. Your global warming BS is nothing but computer models based on falsified data. It's been proven wrong, yet you still cling to it like a drowning woman. Why?

I can't. Science doesn't predict. Extrapolate, plenty, love ya kiddo. Why are you so hostile?

Per Decade warming trend = FAILED

"Hot spot" = FAILED

Increasing storminess = FAILED

Decreasing cold and Snowfall = FAILED

One FAILURE was enough 4 becomes a steam roll.

Why do you continue to defend the AGW conjecture?

^^^^Borrowed from sunsettommy.

And I ask you again. Name one prediction that climate change got right. The climate models have failed repeatedly. How many times do they have to be wrong before you get a clue?

Warming trend?

UAH Global Temperature Update for March, 2018: +0.24 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD

View attachment 188301
Climate Change: Global Temperature | NOAA Climate.gov

Oh Gawd....not this shit again.

MWP findings make all the UAH stuff irrelevant

http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/more-proof-the-skeptics-are-winn

Here ya go....instead of rejecting EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF INFORMATION that doesnt agree with the established narrative of the religion, learn something new for once. You might even get a little credibility around here

Your side has been in "F-You!!" mode for well over 10 years. And where has this strategy benefited you politically? AGW has been falling like a stone in water since 2006.....the public nodded off on it because all the spectacular k00k predictions made with an arrogant certainty that ended up train wrecking. You probably disagree but the rest of the world is no longer moved by statements made by the alarmist contingent.

Outside of the science club it's all about credibility.....

 

[Billy_Bob]

How many times must Hansen'S discredited ass wipe be shown crap covered BS?

 

[RWNJ]

First it was global cooling, and a looming ice age. Then, when they discovered the reality did not match their predictions, they changed the mantra to global warming...OMG! We're all gonna cook in our own juices! When their data, once again, did not match reality, they called it climate change. You know what this tells me, as well as anyone else with a firm grip on reality? They haven't got a blessed clue what they're talking about.

 

[skookerasbil]

First it was global cooling, and a looming ice age. Then, when they discovered the reality did not match their predictions, they changed the mantra to global warming...OMG! We're all gonna cook in our own juices! When their data, once again, did not match reality, they called it climate change. You know what this tells me, as well as anyone else with a firm grip on reality? They haven't got a blessed clue what they're talking about.

But it's all good.... they go on and on and on and on about the science. But in the real world no one is caring about the science. The people who make public policy on climate change could not possibly be less interested. In other words they have yet to make the case..... except on internet message boards of course.

And they know they're losing too..... losing huge. I mean you could enter Keira Knightley into a big boob contest and that's your girl..... but you know deep down you're coming home with the last place trophy.

 

[Sunsettommy]

U.S. Drought Monitor

The west has had a series of droughts, and our forests and crops are paying the price.

Moron...

La Niña Pattern. nothin to see here or worry about... Natural Variation..

They seem to insinuate that any droughts is abnormal, when there has ALWAYS been some drought somewhere in America. They are too ignorant of past droughts waxing and waning in scope and intensity. It was a LOT worse in the 1930's and 1950's than anything in the last 25 years.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Brad, goes silly in the thread avoiding the posted article completely to push his silly spin.

From Real Climate Science

View attachment 188060

LINK

Are we posting about regional weather or global climate?

Surely you read the posted article?

The point was that this kind of cold shouldn't be happening anymore after 68 years of alleged CO2 based warming. But instead we are getting an INCREASE in snow and cold, in defiance of the IPCC predictions/projections.

 

[Sunsettommy]

(CNN)Winter is still in full swing in the North Pole, but temperatures this week have been downright summerlike in the Arctic.

Although it is shrouded in the darkness of a 24-hour polar night, temperatures in the Arctic have soared well above freezing this week, marking the hottest temperatures recorded in the region during winter, according to scientists from the Danish Meteorological Institute.
Calculations from Cape Morris Jessup, the world's northernmost land-based weather station, show that temperatures from February in eastern Greenland and the central Arctic are averaging about 15°C (27°F) warmer than seasonal norms

And although the Arctic has seen temperatures climbing for decades, the past few years have seen the most extreme changes, according to Martin Stendel, a climate scientist at DMI. For the past 20 years, temperatures above freezing in February have only been recorded three times -- first in 2011, then in 2017 and now.


"For years, absolute values of temperatures have become higher and higher, but if you look a couple years back it's not so interesting whether the temperatures were minus 10 degrees C or minus 5 degrees C because the temperature was still well below zero," Stendel said.

View image on Twitter

Arctic temperatures surge in the dead of winter - CNN

And that hardly matches this. But Edmonton need not worry, it won't be long before the weather warms enough that it will be back to normal, even with the Polar Vortex reaching south in the winter as it is deformed by the large Rossby Waves.

Gosh you continue to flog this, despite that similar happened many times in the past. It was ALWAYS below freezing the entire time according to your chart.

You made a fool of yourself earlier denying that the 2018 warm peak was actually at about MINUS 9C, well below the 0 freezing line. You kept saying it was above freezing.......

 

[Sunsettommy]

U.S. Drought Monitor

The west has had a series of droughts, and our forests and crops are paying the price.

Moron...

La Niña Pattern. nothin to see here or worry about... Natural Variation..

It sounds like somebody is in denial. I understand that the Sahara used to be a verdant rain forest, things change. That took thousands of years. Now? it's a matter of decades...i am seeing it, and heartily agree it's human caused. 7 billion people are having effects in more ways than just weather, too. Let's just ignore the facts and whistle past the graveyard.

Mary, he posted a ONE DAY snapshot! It has been far worse in the 1930's and 1950's than anything in the last 25 years. There is always some kind of drought somewhere in America.

The Sahara Desert region has a oscillation period, that goes from Wet to bone dry back to wet every 20,000 years.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Warming and Cooling: The Medieval Climate Anomaly in Africa and Arabia
Sebastian Lüning

Mariusz Gałka

Fritz Vahrenholt


Abstract
The Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) is a well‐recognized climate perturbation in many parts of the world, with a core period of 1000–1200 Common Era. Here we present a palaeotemperature synthesis for the MCA in Africa and Arabia, based on 44 published localities. The data sets have been thoroughly correlated and the MCA trends palaeoclimatologically mapped. The vast majority of available Afro‐Arabian onshore sites suggest a warm MCA, with the exception of the southern Levant where the MCA appears to have been cold. MCA cooling has also been documented in many segments of the circum‐Africa‐Arabian upwelling systems, as a result of changes in the wind systems which were leading to an intensification of cold water upwelling. Offshore cores from outside upwelling systems mostly show warm MCA conditions. The most likely key drivers of the observed medieval climate change are solar forcing and ocean cycles. Conspicuous cold spikes during the earliest and latest MCA may help to discriminate between solar (Oort Minimum) and ocean cycle (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, AMO) influence. Compared to its large share of nearly one quarter of the world's landmass, data from Africa and Arabia are significantly underrepresented in global temperature reconstructions of the past 2,000 years. Onshore data are still absent for most regions in Africa and Arabia, except for regional data clusters in Morocco, South Africa, the East African Rift, and the Levant coast. In order to reconstruct land palaeotemperatures more robustly over Africa and Arabia, a systematic research program is needed.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017PA003237

So there were warm and cold areas in Africa and the Near East. But no quantification on how cold or how warm, and no comparison to present temperatures. Once again, Mr. Westwall misrepresents what is in a scientific article. One has to wonder if he even bothered to read the abstract.

The paper is mostly about OFFSHORE/ onshore areas.

It is a limited paper in scope and regions since they themselves admit they have a lot of uncovered areas:

" Onshore data are still absent for most regions in Africa and Arabia, except for regional data clusters in Morocco, South Africa, the East African Rift, and the Levant coast. In order to reconstruct land palaeotemperatures more robustly over Africa and Arabia, a systematic research program is needed."

 

[Sunsettommy]

I am a sentimental old fool, no argument there. And I am a hardnosed realist, as well. So you resort to name calling, is that the new scientific method? Dazzle them with malarkey or bash them if they don't agree? Well, nice. Smooth. But it isn't working. Like I said before, who do I believe? My own two peepers or your...stuff?

Name one climate change prediction that even came close to getting it right. There is you evidence. Because they did not even get it right one time. Your global warming BS is nothing but computer models based on falsified data. It's been proven wrong, yet you still cling to it like a drowning woman. Why?

I can't. Science doesn't predict. Extrapolate, plenty, love ya kiddo. Why are you so hostile?

Actually they DID Predict, it is right there in the 1990 IPCC report, which I have posted a few times here to be ignored.

The Prediction failed utterly, which is why they stopped making predictions to say projections instead to make it harder to expose their future failures.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Warming and Cooling: The Medieval Climate Anomaly in Africa and Arabia
Sebastian Lüning

Mariusz Gałka

Fritz Vahrenholt


Abstract
The Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) is a well‐recognized climate perturbation in many parts of the world, with a core period of 1000–1200 Common Era. Here we present a palaeotemperature synthesis for the MCA in Africa and Arabia, based on 44 published localities. The data sets have been thoroughly correlated and the MCA trends palaeoclimatologically mapped. The vast majority of available Afro‐Arabian onshore sites suggest a warm MCA, with the exception of the southern Levant where the MCA appears to have been cold. MCA cooling has also been documented in many segments of the circum‐Africa‐Arabian upwelling systems, as a result of changes in the wind systems which were leading to an intensification of cold water upwelling. Offshore cores from outside upwelling systems mostly show warm MCA conditions. The most likely key drivers of the observed medieval climate change are solar forcing and ocean cycles. Conspicuous cold spikes during the earliest and latest MCA may help to discriminate between solar (Oort Minimum) and ocean cycle (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, AMO) influence. Compared to its large share of nearly one quarter of the world's landmass, data from Africa and Arabia are significantly underrepresented in global temperature reconstructions of the past 2,000 years. Onshore data are still absent for most regions in Africa and Arabia, except for regional data clusters in Morocco, South Africa, the East African Rift, and the Levant coast. In order to reconstruct land palaeotemperatures more robustly over Africa and Arabia, a systematic research program is needed.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017PA003237

So there were warm and cold areas in Africa and the Near East. But no quantification on how cold or how warm, and no comparison to present temperatures. Once again, Mr. Westwall misrepresents what is in a scientific article. One has to wonder if he even bothered to read the abstract.

Here is from the same Author, Dr. Vahrenholt ,

Project: Mapping the Medieval Warm Period

Excerpt:

"Project
Cartography of the Medieval Warm Period: Online atlas of a poorly understood warm phase

About 1000 years ago, large parts of the world experienced a prominent warm phase which in many cases reached a similar temperature level as today or even exceeded present-day warmth. While this Medieval Warm Period (MWP) has been documented in numerous case studies from around the globe, climate models still fail to reproduce this historical warm phase. The problem is openly conceded in the most recent IPCC report from 2013 (AR5, Working Group 1) where in chapter 5.3.5. the IPCC scientists admit..."

It is clear that MWP was global in coverage and supported by published science papers.

 

[skookerasbil]

Geeee..... have noticed that the climate alarmist regulars...... visits to this forum recently have dropped dramatically. What's up with that?

C'mon s0ns ......where is the passion?

It wouldn't be because you're getting your clocks cleaned in recent weeks, would it?