Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Brrrrrrr..is right...that is what a solar minimum and global cooling will get ya.
Oh the arctic ice is recovering rapidly. Not that is any help to my creature comforts.
Brrrrrrr..is right...that is what a solar minimum and global cooling will get ya.
Oh the arctic ice is recovering rapidly. Not that is any help to my creature comforts.
Source?
Of course, you have none, since the real data can be found here, and it is contrary to your lies.
Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis
Brrrrrrr..is right...that is what a solar minimum and global cooling will get ya.
Oh the arctic ice is recovering rapidly. Not that is any help to my creature comforts.
Source?
Of course, you have none, since the real data can be found here, and it is contrary to your lies.
Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis
It was over 50 degrees here the day after XMas.
What do you do when "global warming" turns into global cooling? How does a "scientist" handle data that does not support his theory? What's a "scientist" to do when he cannot prove man-made global warming after millions of dollars and many years trying? What do you do when 31,000 real scientists completely refute your contention of man-made global warming? What happens when your computer-generated models turn out to be 180 degrees out of synch?
If you are a global warming "scientist," you do several things: Hide all conflicting data, erase or destroy data that doesn't support your agenda, suppress any and all dissent from skeptics, tell everyone "the argument is over," change your vocabulary from "global warming" to "climate change" and try your best not to let the real data come out.
LETTER: Biggest hoax in history? | Climate Realists
What do you do when "global warming" turns into global cooling? How does a "scientist" handle data that does not support his theory? What's a "scientist" to do when he cannot prove man-made global warming after millions of dollars and many years trying? What do you do when 31,000 real scientists completely refute your contention of man-made global warming? What happens when your computer-generated models turn out to be 180 degrees out of synch?
If you are a global warming "scientist," you do several things: Hide all conflicting data, erase or destroy data that doesn't support your agenda, suppress any and all dissent from skeptics, tell everyone "the argument is over," change your vocabulary from "global warming" to "climate change" and try your best not to let the real data come out.
LETTER: Biggest hoax in history? | Climate Realists
It is NOT 'global warming'.... it IS 'climate change'. Please get with the program and get the terminology right.
Brrrrrrr..is right...that is what a solar minimum and global cooling will get ya.
Oh the arctic ice is recovering rapidly. Not that is any help to my creature comforts.
Source?
Of course, you have none, since the real data can be found here, and it is contrary to your lies.
Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis
I read that but also a slew of other reports that state this is normal and that these warming an cooling trends have happened before as seen in ice cores. Many other researchers are claiming to detect thickening of the main body (Arctic and glacial) while the thinner edges melt, also determinable by the same research that claims global warming to have previously occured. Also the Antarctic ice is reported to be growing and that the total overall loss of ice is in fact minimal when all data is taken into consideration. Who am I to believe?
Brrrrrrr..is right...that is what a solar minimum and global cooling will get ya.
Oh the arctic ice is recovering rapidly. Not that is any help to my creature comforts.
Source?
Of course, you have none, since the real data can be found here, and it is contrary to your lies.
Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis
I read that but also a slew of other reports that state this is normal and that these warming an cooling trends have happened before as seen in ice cores. Many other researchers are claiming to detect thickening of the main body (Arctic and glacial) while the thinner edges melt, also determinable by the same research that claims global warming to have previously occured. Also the Antarctic ice is reported to be growing and that the total overall loss of ice is in fact minimal when all data is taken into consideration. Who am I to believe?
Source?
Of course, you have none, since the real data can be found here, and it is contrary to your lies.
Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis
I read that but also a slew of other reports that state this is normal and that these warming an cooling trends have happened before as seen in ice cores. Many other researchers are claiming to detect thickening of the main body (Arctic and glacial) while the thinner edges melt, also determinable by the same research that claims global warming to have previously occured. Also the Antarctic ice is reported to be growing and that the total overall loss of ice is in fact minimal when all data is taken into consideration. Who am I to believe?
Find out everything you can. Be wary of any information that makes a prediction with a call to action. That is the marker of a political opinion piece. Always seek the proof of the causal connection between the CO2 rise and the temperature increase. The connection is always implied and never proven.
Now that is an outright lie. The causal effect of CO2 as a GHG was proven by Tyndal in 1858 when he established the absorbtion spectrum of CO2.
Establish a context for information. Understand what is being said and parse everything. Check the born on date for any report and fact check every tid bit you come across.
Yes, of course. And remember, James Watt has never published a peer reviewed article on global warming. And that 99% of all peer reviewed articles on global warming not only state that it does exist, but the primary cause in the burning of fossil fuels by man.
If you're like me, you became interested in this because you were concerned that man kind was destroying the planet. The more I find out about this, the less likely that appears to be. Well, at least from a changing the climate with CO2 standpoint.
Of course the fact that real physicists completely disagree with you has absolutely no bearing on the debate.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Not only this, but the geophysicists have well established the corelations of the past climate rapid warming periods with CO2
You may want to start your consideration with two facts:
1. CO2 has RISEN to the level of 0.04% of the atmosphere. 400 ppm. Water Vapor, another Green House Gas is 5.0% of the atmosphere. 50,000 ppm. You may arrive the relative temperature forcing capabilities on your own.
You may repeat that spin forever, and it will still be lying spin.
Water vapor has a residence period in the atmosphere of less than 10 days. CO2, 200 years.
Increase the CO2 in the atmosphere, the atmosphere gets warmer, and more water is evaporated into the atmosphere, creating even more heating. It is called a positive feedback.
2. The total temperature rise Globally across the last 2000 years has been 0.7 degrees. The rate of increase for the most recent 1000 years is slower than the rate of increase for the previous 1000 years.
Yet at no time in the last 1000 years have we seen the effects in the Arctic that we are seeing today.
At no time in the last 1000 years have we been in danger of losing all of our glaciers.
At no time in the last 15 million years has the CO2 and CH4 levels been as high as they are today.
What we are seeing happening today, is the effect of GHGs in the atmosphere 30 to 50 years ago, there is that much inertia in the atmosphere.
This is a fun debate and has nothing to do with religion, natural origin or, if you're a member of the IPCC, facts of any type. Have at it.
I read that but also a slew of other reports that state this is normal and that these warming an cooling trends have happened before as seen in ice cores. Many other researchers are claiming to detect thickening of the main body (Arctic and glacial) while the thinner edges melt, also determinable by the same research that claims global warming to have previously occured. Also the Antarctic ice is reported to be growing and that the total overall loss of ice is in fact minimal when all data is taken into consideration. Who am I to believe?
Find out everything you can. Be wary of any information that makes a prediction with a call to action. That is the marker of a political opinion piece. Always seek the proof of the causal connection between the CO2 rise and the temperature increase. The connection is always implied and never proven.
Now that is an outright lie. The causal effect of CO2 as a GHG was proven by Tyndal in 1858 when he established the absorbtion spectrum of CO2.
Establish a context for information. Understand what is being said and parse everything. Check the born on date for any report and fact check every tid bit you come across.
Yes, of course. And remember, James Watt has never published a peer reviewed article on global warming. And that 99% of all peer reviewed articles on global warming not only state that it does exist, but the primary cause in the burning of fossil fuels by man.
If you're like me, you became interested in this because you were concerned that man kind was destroying the planet. The more I find out about this, the less likely that appears to be. Well, at least from a changing the climate with CO2 standpoint.
Of course the fact that real physicists completely disagree with you has absolutely no bearing on the debate.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Not only this, but the geophysicists have well established the corelations of the past climate rapid warming periods with CO2
You may want to start your consideration with two facts:
1. CO2 has RISEN to the level of 0.04% of the atmosphere. 400 ppm. Water Vapor, another Green House Gas is 5.0% of the atmosphere. 50,000 ppm. You may arrive the relative temperature forcing capabilities on your own.
You may repeat that spin forever, and it will still be lying spin.
Water vapor has a residence period in the atmosphere of less than 10 days. CO2, 200 years.
Increase the CO2 in the atmosphere, the atmosphere gets warmer, and more water is evaporated into the atmosphere, creating even more heating. It is called a positive feedback.
2. The total temperature rise Globally across the last 2000 years has been 0.7 degrees. The rate of increase for the most recent 1000 years is slower than the rate of increase for the previous 1000 years.
Yet at no time in the last 1000 years have we seen the effects in the Arctic that we are seeing today.
At no time in the last 1000 years have we been in danger of losing all of our glaciers.
At no time in the last 15 million years has the CO2 and CH4 levels been as high as they are today.
What we are seeing happening today, is the effect of GHGs in the atmosphere 30 to 50 years ago, there is that much inertia in the atmosphere.
This is a fun debate and has nothing to do with religion, natural origin or, if you're a member of the IPCC, facts of any type. Have at it.
Every Scientific Society in the world, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world states that Global Warming is happening, that Man's use of fossil fuels in the primary danger, and that the results of this warming represent a clear and present danger to the world's population.
Wind chill temperatures??? what the heck?
Hey Ole Crocks... you still can't get around this small fact.Very good. And the deep dive in 2008 meant that 2008 only turned out to be the 8th or 9th warmest year on record. So we have a solar minimum, a strong La Nina, and we still get the 8th or 9th warmest year on record. And, of course, were you to pick a differant start point, the slope of the graph would be flat, or even up.
You dingbat 'coolists' can only make your point by cherry picking data, and outright lying. However, what are you going to say if 2010 comes in close, or higher, than 1998?
Hey Ole Crocks... you still can't get around this small fact.Very good. And the deep dive in 2008 meant that 2008 only turned out to be the 8th or 9th warmest year on record. So we have a solar minimum, a strong La Nina, and we still get the 8th or 9th warmest year on record. And, of course, were you to pick a differant start point, the slope of the graph would be flat, or even up.
You dingbat 'coolists' can only make your point by cherry picking data, and outright lying. However, what are you going to say if 2010 comes in close, or higher, than 1998?
It's not man's fault.
Algore should be fed to the goddamn 'starving drowning polar bears'. Or use his fat head as a flotation device.Hey Ole Crocks... you still can't get around this small fact.Very good. And the deep dive in 2008 meant that 2008 only turned out to be the 8th or 9th warmest year on record. So we have a solar minimum, a strong La Nina, and we still get the 8th or 9th warmest year on record. And, of course, were you to pick a differant start point, the slope of the graph would be flat, or even up.
You dingbat 'coolists' can only make your point by cherry picking data, and outright lying. However, what are you going to say if 2010 comes in close, or higher, than 1998?
It's not man's fault.
but, but, Uncle Al told him it was.
hell, it's a balmy -9 right now here in the Twin Cities. Get me some of that global warming crap I've been promised for being taxed into slavery.
