Coldest Winter in 100 Years

[GHook93]

It's cold in Great Britain, therefore, global warming is a lie.

Well, the way it was explained to me is that when there is a lot of ice cover, the white ice reflects the light and heat back into the atmosphere which makes the world seem a little warmer, because the atmosphere is being heated.

With the ice gone, the heat is being absorbed by the dark ocean, which is up to 7 miles thick, which means a temperature increase will take time. Since heat is not being reflected back into the atmosphere, it seems colder, but over time, with the ocean absorbing the heat, the planet heating up will be more apparent. Conservatives just assume you take some kind of temperature indicator outside and "take a temperature". For them, it's just that simple. Everything is "just that simple".

Now for conservatives, considering their lack of interest in anything that involves data or proof, it's no wonder they don't "believe". To them the entire world is a "belief". If you believe it, it's true. Doesn't matter the facts. Look at their foreign policy. Nothing has happened the way they "believed it should have happened. Rather than question their "beliefs", they just assume others are wrong, no matter the evidence. Some describe that as "delusional".

Let me get this right. The everything gets colder on the planet, but the solar ice caps they get warmer! They are the exception.

Therefore what we are getting now is some of the cold years on record, because the planet is heating up?

 

[elvis]

It's cold in Great Britain, therefore, global warming is a lie.

Well, the way it was explained to me is that when there is a lot of ice cover, the white ice reflects the light and heat back into the atmosphere which makes the world seem a little warmer, because the atmosphere is being heated.

With the ice gone, the heat is being absorbed by the dark ocean, which is up to 7 miles thick, which means a temperature increase will take time. Since heat is not being reflected back into the atmosphere, it seems colder, but over time, with the ocean absorbing the heat, the planet heating up will be more apparent. Conservatives just assume you take some kind of temperature indicator outside and "take a temperature". For them, it's just that simple. Everything is "just that simple".

Now for conservatives, considering their lack of interest in anything that involves data or proof, it's no wonder they don't "believe". To them the entire world is a "belief". If you believe it, it's true. Doesn't matter the facts. Look at their foreign policy. Nothing has happened the way they "believed it should have happened. Rather than question their "beliefs", they just assume others are wrong, no matter the evidence. Some describe that as "delusional".

Let me get this right. The everything gets colder on the planet, but the solar ice caps they get warmer! They are the exception.

Therefore what we are getting now is some of the cold years on record, because the planet is heating up?

He'll have to check with Al Whore and Old Rockhead and get back to you.

 

[Polk]

Climate =/= weather.

 

[Chris]

The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, so we should expect a cold winter.

The effect of CO2 is always within the context of the Sun's activity.

But the right will ignore any fact to make a political point.

 

[B L Zeebub]

make sure you feed the Blue Tits, and for that matter Tits in general.

I knew it was going to be cold this winter for two reasons, the first clue is in the name Winter, the second is my berries are bright red and shiny.

 

[elvis]

The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, so we should expect a cold winter.

The effect of CO2 is always within the context of the Sun's activity.

But the right will ignore any fact to make a political point.

fuck off, Osama.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Yes to all that an in addition, the claim Sinatra brings once again as fact is only a mere prediction.

Real scientific.

The main complaint I have with the climate goofs these days is that their feeling that if the data don't fit the model, then the data have to be changed, rather than the model. Sinatra and I just have the anti scientific idea that if the model and the data don't agree, it is the model that needs to be changed, rather than the data.

 

[Chris]

Yes to all that an in addition, the claim Sinatra brings once again as fact is only a mere prediction.

Real scientific.

The main complaint I have with the climate goofs these days is that their feeling that if the data don't fit the model, then the data have to be changed, rather than the model. Sinatra and I just have the anti scientific idea that if the model and the data don't agree, it is the model that needs to be changed, rather than the data.

CO2 causes the earth to warm within the context of the Sun's activity.

How hard is that to understand?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Yes to all that an in addition, the claim Sinatra brings once again as fact is only a mere prediction.

Real scientific.

The main complaint I have with the climate goofs these days is that their feeling that if the data don't fit the model, then the data have to be changed, rather than the model. Sinatra and I just have the anti scientific idea that if the model and the data don't agree, it is the model that needs to be changed, rather than the data.

CO2 causes the earth to warm within the context of the Sun's activity.

How hard is that to understand?

I don't mis understand your point, I just don't agree with it.
Asserting it to be so does not make it so.
If it were the case that an n% increase in resulted in a change of y% in temperature, then I could give the idea credit. But what the climate folks have not been able to do is demonstrate that correlation. Carbon has not increased that much as a percentage, the percentage has been mostly flat over the years and they want us to believe that a very small change in carbon (Which is a very small portion of the earth's atmosphere anyway) is supposed to cause a huge change in temperature. And the change in temperature does not track the change in carbon.

It does track the change in solar activity very well though. Which is what skeptics have been saying all along.

 

[elvis]

The main complaint I have with the climate goofs these days is that their feeling that if the data don't fit the model, then the data have to be changed, rather than the model. Sinatra and I just have the anti scientific idea that if the model and the data don't agree, it is the model that needs to be changed, rather than the data.

CO2 causes the earth to warm within the context of the Sun's activity.

How hard is that to understand?

I don't mis understand your point, I just don't agree with it.
Asserting it to be so does not make it so.
If it were the case that an n% increase in resulted in a change of y% in temperature, then I could give the idea credit. But what the climate folks have not been able to do is demonstrate that correlation. Carbon has not increased that much as a percentage, the percentage has been mostly flat over the years and they want us to believe that a very small change in carbon (Which is a very small portion of the earth's atmosphere anyway) is supposed to cause a huge change in temperature. And the change in temperature does not track the change in carbon.

It does track the change in solar activity very well though. Which is what skeptics have been saying all along.

Don't bother trying to reason with Chrissy.

 

[Chris]

The main complaint I have with the climate goofs these days is that their feeling that if the data don't fit the model, then the data have to be changed, rather than the model. Sinatra and I just have the anti scientific idea that if the model and the data don't agree, it is the model that needs to be changed, rather than the data.

CO2 causes the earth to warm within the context of the Sun's activity.

How hard is that to understand?

I don't mis understand your point, I just don't agree with it.
Asserting it to be so does not make it so.
If it were the case that an n% increase in resulted in a change of y% in temperature, then I could give the idea credit. But what the climate folks have not been able to do is demonstrate that correlation. Carbon has not increased that much as a percentage, the percentage has been mostly flat over the years and they want us to believe that a very small change in carbon (Which is a very small portion of the earth's atmosphere anyway) is supposed to cause a huge change in temperature. And the change in temperature does not track the change in carbon.

It does track the change in solar activity very well though. Which is what skeptics have been saying all along.

No, actually that is what I have been saying all along.

And yes increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% does warm the earth.

That is a scientific fact.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Britain facing one of the coldest winters in 100 years, experts predict

Britain is bracing itself for one of the coldest winters for a century with temperatures hitting minus 16 degrees Celsius, forecasters have warned.

They predicted no let up in the freezing snap until at least mid-January, with snow, ice and severe frosts dominating.

And the likelihood is that the second half of the month will be even colder....

____


Britain facing one of the coldest winters in 100 years, experts predict - Telegraph

As evidenced by the idiotic posts in this thread , you forgot the basics. Global WARMING causes EVERYTHING to happen. Including male hair loss and impotence. Just remember in the future when your buried in 5 feet of snow IT REALLY is getting warmer. We are all doomed by either a new ice age or deserts everywhere, the global warming believers will let you know in 40 or 50 years which it will be.

 

[Old Rocks]

Um, isn't it supposed to get warmer with Global Warming?

Bueller? McFly? Bueller? Anyone? Anyone?

Well, Frank, that is exactly what is happening;

November 2009 UAH Global Temperature Update +0.50 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2009 1 +0.304 +0.443 +0.165 -0.036
2009 2 +0.347 +0.678 +0.016 +0.051
2009 3 +0.206 +0.310 +0.103 -0.149
2009 4 +0.090 +0.124 +0.056 -0.014
2009 5 +0.045 +0.046 +0.044 -0.166
2009 6 +0.003 +0.031 -0.025 -0.003
2009 7 +0.411 +0.212 +0.610 +0.427
2009 8 +0.229 +0.282 +0.177 +0.456
2009 9 +0.422 +0.549 +0.294 +0.511
2009 10 +0.286 +0.274 +0.297 +0.326
2009 11 +0.496 +0.418 +0.575 +0.493

 

[Old Rocks]

Britain facing one of the coldest winters in 100 years, experts predict

Britain is bracing itself for one of the coldest winters for a century with temperatures hitting minus 16 degrees Celsius, forecasters have warned.

They predicted no let up in the freezing snap until at least mid-January, with snow, ice and severe frosts dominating.

And the likelihood is that the second half of the month will be even colder....

____


Britain facing one of the coldest winters in 100 years, experts predict - Telegraph

As evidenced by the idiotic posts in this thread , you forgot the basics. Global WARMING causes EVERYTHING to happen. Including male hair loss and impotence. Just remember in the future when your buried in 5 feet of snow IT REALLY is getting warmer. We are all doomed by either a new ice age or deserts everywhere, the global warming believers will let you know in 40 or 50 years which it will be.

Sarge, are you attempting to prove yourself as stupid as possible?

 

[Old Rocks]

A single penguin does not an ice age make.

While it is true that this is a very cold year pretty much throughout the northern hemisphere, this one data point does not disprove the theory.

But it should be noted that according the the models of the great climate scientists, this is not supposed to be happening. I do think it is a good idea that if the observed data fails to match the model, the model must have flaws and should be reviewed. But I fear that for many, they will still stand in their parkas atop the snowdrifts in august (were such a thing to happen) and claim the earth is getting hotter, direct evidence of their own eyes to to the contrary.

Several things were supposed to happen this year, among them several force 5 hurricanes. We didn't get any.

Stated by whom? Links please, otherwise, it is just more bullshit posting.

 

[mudwhistle]

It's cold in Great Britain, therefore, global warming is a lie.

Well, the way it was explained to me is that when there is a lot of ice cover, the white ice reflects the light and heat back into the atmosphere which makes the world seem a little warmer, because the atmosphere is being heated.

With the ice gone, the heat is being absorbed by the dark ocean, which is up to 7 miles thick, which means a temperature increase will take time. Since heat is not being reflected back into the atmosphere, it seems colder, but over time, with the ocean absorbing the heat, the planet heating up will be more apparent. Conservatives just assume you take some kind of temperature indicator outside and "take a temperature". For them, it's just that simple. Everything is "just that simple".

Now for conservatives, considering their lack of interest in anything that involves data or proof, it's no wonder they don't "believe". To them the entire world is a "belief". If you believe it, it's true. Doesn't matter the facts. Look at their foreign policy. Nothing has happened the way they "believed it should have happened. Rather than question their "beliefs", they just assume others are wrong, no matter the evidence. Some describe that as "delusional".

You make assumptions that are not based in fact.

Just because someone feels Global Warming [MMGW] is a hoax it doesn't mean they don't care about the planet. We don't have to believe the same nonsense to show proper concern.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes to all that an in addition, the claim Sinatra brings once again as fact is only a mere prediction.

Real scientific.

The main complaint I have with the climate goofs these days is that their feeling that if the data don't fit the model, then the data have to be changed, rather than the model. Sinatra and I just have the anti scientific idea that if the model and the data don't agree, it is the model that needs to be changed, rather than the data.

Once again, show where this is the case? Ever bother to actualy read what real scientists are saying? At the AGU Conferance a lot of scientists showed much data and evidence. Have you even bothered to review what was said?

All too many people here that seem otherwise intelligent seem to desire to ignore reality to the point of making themselves seem among the willfully ignorant.

 

[Liability]

CO2 causes the earth to warm within the context of the Sun's activity.

How hard is that to understand?

I don't mis understand your point, I just don't agree with it.
Asserting it to be so does not make it so.
If it were the case that an n% increase in resulted in a change of y% in temperature, then I could give the idea credit. But what the climate folks have not been able to do is demonstrate that correlation. Carbon has not increased that much as a percentage, the percentage has been mostly flat over the years and they want us to believe that a very small change in carbon (Which is a very small portion of the earth's atmosphere anyway) is supposed to cause a huge change in temperature. And the change in temperature does not track the change in carbon.

It does track the change in solar activity very well though. Which is what skeptics have been saying all along.

No, actually that is what I have been saying all along.

And yes increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% does warm the earth.

That is a scientific fact.

No. It's not. It's still JUST a theory. And it is not an especially compelling theory, either.

 

[Old Rocks]

It's cold in Great Britain, therefore, global warming is a lie.

Well, the way it was explained to me is that when there is a lot of ice cover, the white ice reflects the light and heat back into the atmosphere which makes the world seem a little warmer, because the atmosphere is being heated.

With the ice gone, the heat is being absorbed by the dark ocean, which is up to 7 miles thick, which means a temperature increase will take time. Since heat is not being reflected back into the atmosphere, it seems colder, but over time, with the ocean absorbing the heat, the planet heating up will be more apparent. Conservatives just assume you take some kind of temperature indicator outside and "take a temperature". For them, it's just that simple. Everything is "just that simple".

Now for conservatives, considering their lack of interest in anything that involves data or proof, it's no wonder they don't "believe". To them the entire world is a "belief". If you believe it, it's true. Doesn't matter the facts. Look at their foreign policy. Nothing has happened the way they "believed it should have happened. Rather than question their "beliefs", they just assume others are wrong, no matter the evidence. Some describe that as "delusional".

You make assumptions that are not based in fact.

Just because someone feels Global Warming [MMGW] is a hoax it doesn't mean they don't care about the planet. We don't have to believe the same nonsense to show proper concern.

Anybody that cannot look at the evidence and data and see that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger is not intelligent enough, or is so driven by ideology, that their opinions on any matters is suspect.

 

[Old Rocks]

I don't mis understand your point, I just don't agree with it.
Asserting it to be so does not make it so.
If it were the case that an n% increase in resulted in a change of y% in temperature, then I could give the idea credit. But what the climate folks have not been able to do is demonstrate that correlation. Carbon has not increased that much as a percentage, the percentage has been mostly flat over the years and they want us to believe that a very small change in carbon (Which is a very small portion of the earth's atmosphere anyway) is supposed to cause a huge change in temperature. And the change in temperature does not track the change in carbon.

It does track the change in solar activity very well though. Which is what skeptics have been saying all along.

No, actually that is what I have been saying all along.

And yes increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% does warm the earth.

That is a scientific fact.

No. It's not. It's still JUST a theory. And it is not an especially compelling theory, either.

Only compelling enough that all the Scientific Societies in the world, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities state that it is a fact.

But fucking dummies that cannot accept reality do not accept it. Which changes the reality not one whit.