America’s Most Advanced Climate Station Data Shows US In A 10-Year Cooling Trend Read more: http:

[jc456]

Mr. jc454, the truth is not in you. The scientists from around the world have spoken with a unanimous voice, and they have said we are warming, too rapidly, and that will create a precarious future not only for many humans but also for the other species on this planet.

And the best scientists, in the 70s, said we were on the brink of the next ice age.

Nope! They weren't. You're parroting a thoroughly debunked denier cult myth and propaganda meme that has no real basis in reality. The large majority of scientists studying the climate in the 1970's were far more concerned about global warming. This is revealed in the scientific literature of that era.

The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Vol. 89: Issue. 9: Pages. 1325-1337
(Volume publication date: September 2008)
DOI: 10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
Thomas C. Peterson , William M. Connolley and John Fleck

Abstract
Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

View PDF (4234 KB)
AMS Journals © 2015

Thomas C. Peterson , William M. Connolley and John Fleck

All three are revisionists and liars... My God man these people are the bottom of the proverbial barrel, the shit barrel.. They are right in there with Mann , Hansen, among many others.

Cough, Cough William Connley (fucktard revisionist banned from wiki) well known liar!!!

So, it is above 2009 levels, and will be below that trend line again in the near future. And eventually will hit zero in September. Well before 2100.

You do know that the ice is only going to start to redevelop correct?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Mr. jc454, the truth is not in you. The scientists from around the world have spoken with a unanimous voice, and they have said we are warming, too rapidly, and that will create a precarious future not only for many humans but also for the other species on this planet.

And the best scientists, in the 70s, said we were on the brink of the next ice age.

Nope! They weren't. You're parroting a thoroughly debunked denier cult myth and propaganda meme that has no real basis in reality. The large majority of scientists studying the climate in the 1970's were far more concerned about global warming. This is revealed in the scientific literature of that era.

The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Vol. 89: Issue. 9: Pages. 1325-1337
(Volume publication date: September 2008)
DOI: 10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
Thomas C. Peterson , William M. Connolley and John Fleck

Abstract
Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

View PDF (4234 KB)
AMS Journals © 2015

Thomas C. Peterson , William M. Connolley and John Fleck

All three are revisionists and liars... My God man these people are the bottom of the proverbial barrel, the shit barrel.. They are right in there with Mann , Hansen, among many others.

Cough, Cough William Connley (fucktard revisionist banned from wiki) well known liar!!!

So, it is above 2009 levels, and will be below that trend line again in the near future. And eventually will hit zero in September. Well before 2100.

Nope... aint gonna happen... The Atlantic has gone cold and there is no more warm water entering the arctic region from the Atlantic side. the ice will rebound rather nicely this year.

Hell its already started to increase due to cold temps and lack of melting..

At this rate of increase we will be back inside of 2 standard deviations within a month.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The rate of climb is very similar to the rate of decent indicating a cyclical function.

 

[hortysir]

Mr. jc454, the truth is not in you. The scientists from around the world have spoken with a unanimous voice, and they have said we are warming, too rapidly, and that will create a precarious future not only for many humans but also for the other species on this planet.

And the best scientists, in the 70s, said we were on the brink of the next ice age.

Nope! They weren't. You're parroting a thoroughly debunked denier cult myth and propaganda meme that has no real basis in reality. The large majority of scientists studying the climate in the 1970's were far more concerned about global warming. This is revealed in the scientific literature of that era.

The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Vol. 89: Issue. 9: Pages. 1325-1337
(Volume publication date: September 2008)
DOI: 10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
Thomas C. Peterson , William M. Connolley and John Fleck

Abstract
Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

View PDF (4234 KB)
AMS Journals © 2015

YouTube

LOLOLOLOLOL......poor deluded and very confused denier cultists....

It is shown to you that most scientists publishing papers about the climate in the 70's were already predicting global warming....and you respond with a video of a newscaster? LOL.

Sorry if your favorite Wikipedia wasn't around d in 1972.
This is how us grownups used to get real news

 

[Old Rocks]

The rate of climb is very similar to the rate of decent indicating a cyclical function.

My goodness, Mr. BillyBob, whatever are you talking about? The dip is very similiar to that we see for 1982 to 1986.

 

[RollingThunder]

Mr. jc454, the truth is not in you. The scientists from around the world have spoken with a unanimous voice, and they have said we are warming, too rapidly, and that will create a precarious future not only for many humans but also for the other species on this planet.

And the best scientists, in the 70s, said we were on the brink of the next ice age.

Nope! They weren't. You're parroting a thoroughly debunked denier cult myth and propaganda meme that has no real basis in reality. The large majority of scientists studying the climate in the 1970's were far more concerned about global warming. This is revealed in the scientific literature of that era.

The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Vol. 89: Issue. 9: Pages. 1325-1337
(Volume publication date: September 2008)
DOI: 10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
Thomas C. Peterson , William M. Connolley and John Fleck

Abstract
Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

View PDF (4234 KB)
AMS Journals © 2015

YouTube

LOLOLOLOLOL......poor deluded and very confused denier cultists....

It is shown to you that most scientists publishing papers about the climate in the 70's were already predicting global warming....and you respond with a video of a newscaster? LOL.

Sorry if your favorite Wikipedia wasn't around d in 1972.
This is how us grownups used to get real news

Sorry your brain has apparently gone AWOL in 2015, Mr. HorseShit.

Reputable science journals like the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society or Scientific American are how intelligent adults get real science, not from random newscasts.

Perhaps when you grow up, you'll realize that.

 

[skookerasbil]

Mr. jc454, the truth is not in you. The scientists from around the world have spoken with a unanimous voice, and they have said we are warming, too rapidly, and that will create a precarious future not only for many humans but also for the other species on this planet.

And the best scientists, in the 70s, said we were on the brink of the next ice age.

Nope! They weren't. You're parroting a thoroughly debunked denier cult myth and propaganda meme that has no real basis in reality. The large majority of scientists studying the climate in the 1970's were far more concerned about global warming. This is revealed in the scientific literature of that era.

The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Vol. 89: Issue. 9: Pages. 1325-1337
(Volume publication date: September 2008)
DOI: 10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
Thomas C. Peterson , William M. Connolley and John Fleck

Abstract
Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

View PDF (4234 KB)
AMS Journals © 2015

YouTube

LOLOLOLOLOL......poor deluded and very confused denier cultists....

It is shown to you that most scientists publishing papers about the climate in the 70's were already predicting global warming....and you respond with a video of a newscaster? LOL.

Sorry if your favorite Wikipedia wasn't around d in 1972.
This is how us grownups used to get real news

Sorry your brain has apparently gone AWOL in 2015, Mr. HorseShit.

Reputable science journals like the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society or Scientific American are how intelligent adults get real science, not from random newscasts.

Perhaps when you grow up, you'll realize that.

s0n.............what happened to the mega-sized font? Were you in rehab or something?



Still nobody is caring about the science s0n!!!


Mr Horseshit is................still winning!!!!




[URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/pew-report-climate-change.jpg.html'][/URL]





[URL='http://[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/burger%20king.jpg.html][IMG]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/burger%20king.jpg[/IMG][/URL]'][URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/burger%20king.jpg.html'][/URL][/URL]

 

[BullKurtz]

So, it is above 2009 levels, and will be below that trend line again in the near future. And eventually will hit zero in September. Well before 2100.

So you continue to call ME a "liar" while admitting you're full of shit. If there is some climate phenomenon going on, there can't be periodic increases in sea ice. You zombies laugh and name-call when your cockeyed theory gets exposed as the fraud it is. Just admit you want to deindustrialize the US by closing down our oil and coal industries. That's your objective and the climate scare is a pitiful cloak for your real objective...an objective you obviously never thought through.

 

[Old Rocks]

You know, Mr. Bullkurz, when something drops 13,000 cubic kilometers in 40 years, then gains back 4,500 cubic kilometers in three years, and starts dropping again, and you call that an increase, you are either lying, or extremely stupid. I did you a favor and just assumed your were lying. Wrong assumption.

 

[Old Rocks]

Shut down coal for sure, oil has many uses other than fuel. And that will hardly de-industrialize the US. In fact, it will make energy cheaper for industry as both wind and solar are now cheaper than coal to build and operate.

 

[BullKurtz]

You know, Mr. Bullkurz, when something drops 13,000 cubic kilometers in 40 years, then gains back 4,500 cubic kilometers in three years, and starts dropping again, and you call that an increase, you are either lying, or extremely stupid. I did you a favor and just assumed your were lying. Wrong assumption.

You already posted where the funding for these organizations comes from....if they go against the agenda of that agency they're defunded. But you know this and you know their data is a load of crap. a willful load of crap. They fake pictures...they put their sensors in the sunlight and close to metal buildings and asphalt. They phony up data others have to comb over to expose. The average American has no way to refute this crap so they ignore it and live their lives. What you're doing is promoting a cottage industry based on lies. Lies intended to gut the USA's ability to defend itself and prosper. I consider your ilk traitors who don't have the guts to say your true intentions and be judged for them.

 

[BullKurtz]

Shut down coal for sure, oil has many uses other than fuel. And that will hardly de-industrialize the US. In fact, it will make energy cheaper for industry as both wind and solar are now cheaper than coal to build and operate.

Wind and solar...just unfuckingbelievable.

 

[Old Rocks]

Mr. BullKurz, you are indeed a lying son of a bitch. The BEST papers laid all those lies to rest, and Muller's work proved what assholes the people making those statements are. For they know better, yet continue to make such statements. As this year puts the idea of a 'pause' or 'cooling' to rest, the scientists and the Democratic Party is going to remind the GOP of their idiocy in 2016. The party of willful ignorance, bigotry, and stupidity will pay dearly for the lies they continue to tell.

 

[Old Rocks]

1.2 Gw of solar going in in Austin at less than 4 cents a kw. Wind now down below 4 cents a kw. Dirty coal, no scrubbers, still 6.6 cents a kw, and the price is rising. For wind and solar, the price will continue to decline. Coal is dead.

 

[jc456]

Mr. BullKurz, you are indeed a lying son of a bitch. The BEST papers laid all those lies to rest, and Muller's work proved what assholes the people making those statements are. For they know better, yet continue to make such statements. As this year puts the idea of a 'pause' or 'cooling' to rest, the scientists and the Democratic Party is going to remind the GOP of their idiocy in 2016. The party of willful ignorance, bigotry, and stupidity will pay dearly for the lies they continue to tell.

Like they did in 2014? LOL

 

[jc456]

1.2 Gw of solar going in in Austin at less than 4 cents a kw. Wind now down below 4 cents a kw. Dirty coal, no scrubbers, still 6.6 cents a kw, and the price is rising. For wind and solar, the price will continue to decline. Coal is dead.

Let's see some actual evidence of that statement.

 

[Old Rocks]

By the way, Mr. BullKurz, get used to losing to liberals. If you cannot post real science, just baseless flap yap, you lose. Lose in debate. lose in elections. The world is warmng, and we are the reason that it is warming. We can continue to go down the road we are on, and pay the price, or we can correct our actions and have a better future.

 

[jc456]

Germany just went back to coal fool

 

[jc456]

By the way, Mr. BullKurz, get used to losing to liberals. If you cannot post real science, just baseless flap yap, you lose. Lose in debate. lose in elections. The world is warmng, and we are the reason that it is warming. We can continue to go down the road we are on, and pay the price, or we can correct our actions and have a better future.

Hmmmm, can you say 2014

 

[Old Rocks]

1.2 Gw of solar going in in Austin at less than 4 cents a kw. Wind now down below 4 cents a kw. Dirty coal, no scrubbers, still 6.6 cents a kw, and the price is rising. For wind and solar, the price will continue to decline. Coal is dead.

Let's see some actual evidence of that statement.

Easy, Mr. jc. I don't post flap yap as you do.

Cheapest Solar Ever Austin Energy Gets 1.2 Gigawatts of Solar Bids for Less Than 4 Cents Greentech Media

A lot more cheap solar is coming for Austin, Texas.

The city's utility, Austin Energy, just released new data on developer bids for PV projects as part of a 600-megawatt procurement. The numbers show how far solar prices have come down over the last year -- and will continue to drop.

According to Khalil Shalabi, Austin Energy's vice president of resource planning, the utility received offers for 7,976 megawatts of projects after issuing a request for bids in April. Out of those bids, 1,295 megawatts of projects were priced below 4 cents per kilowatt-hour.

"The technology is getting better and the prices are decreasing with time," said Shalabi during a presentation in front of the Austin city council last week.

Shalabi displayed the chart below showing an "exponentially declining curve" for PV projects in Texas.

"If you continue the curve, you can see that if the cost points continue along this sort of exponentially declining curve. We expect to see prices out in the future that are possibly below $20 a megawatt-hour," he said.