Global Cooling in 2009

[Midnight Marauder]

You can't run from it Old Rocks.

You utilized a Roy Spencer graph in defense of your flat earth warming theory when in fact Dr. Spencer feels quite the opposite regarding man-made global warming. Spencer notes warming and cooling have occurred, and nothing regarding the more recent warming appears in any way remarkable from previous periods. CO2 as a causative agent is likely given far too much importance, the earth's climate is far more vast and complicated than the flat-earth warmers wish to admite, and whatever warming is taking place - even if contributed via CO2, is no big deal.

OldCrocks will never admit he is wrong, no matter how well it's proven, and will never man-up when he's made a mistake.

No religious fundie ever does!

 

[Sinatra]

You can't run from it Old Rocks.

You utilized a Roy Spencer graph in defense of your flat earth warming theory when in fact Dr. Spencer feels quite the opposite regarding man-made global warming. Spencer notes warming and cooling have occurred, and nothing regarding the more recent warming appears in any way remarkable from previous periods. CO2 as a causative agent is likely given far too much importance, the earth's climate is far more vast and complicated than the flat-earth warmers wish to admite, and whatever warming is taking place - even if contributed via CO2, is no big deal.

OldCrocks will never admit he is wrong, no matter how well it's proven, and will never man-up when he's made a mistake.

No religious fundie ever does!

Agreed - but some enjoyment is to be had proving his ignorance yet again...

 

[Midnight Marauder]

You can't run from it Old Rocks.

You utilized a Roy Spencer graph in defense of your flat earth warming theory when in fact Dr. Spencer feels quite the opposite regarding man-made global warming. Spencer notes warming and cooling have occurred, and nothing regarding the more recent warming appears in any way remarkable from previous periods. CO2 as a causative agent is likely given far too much importance, the earth's climate is far more vast and complicated than the flat-earth warmers wish to admite, and whatever warming is taking place - even if contributed via CO2, is no big deal.

OldCrocks will never admit he is wrong, no matter how well it's proven, and will never man-up when he's made a mistake.

No religious fundie ever does!

Agreed - but some enjoyment is to be had proving his ignorance yet again...

He'll just ignore it and move right along, quoting the same scriptures from the various bibles.

Check my sig, go right to his quote there and see what happens when he's totally taken apart.

He just runs.

 

[Old Rocks]

As usual, Monkton is a lying. Lying about a real and respected scientist.

‘Hansen has been wrong before’—Maybe, but not about the climate! | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

Objection: In 1988, Hansen predicted dire warming over the next decade -- and he was off by 300%. Why in the world should we listen to the same doom and gloom from him today?

Answer: While in some instances it is ignorant repetition of misinformation, at its source this story is a plain lie.

In 1988, James Hansen testified before the U.S. Senate on the danger of anthropogenic global warming. During that testimony he presented a graph -- part of a paper published soon after. This graph had three lines on it, representing three scenarios based on three projections of future emissions and volcanism.


Line A was a temperature trend prediction based on rapid emissions growth and no large volcanic event; it was a steep climb through the year 2000 and beyond.

Line B was based on modest emissions growth and one large volcanic eruption in the mid 1990s.

Line C began along the same trajectory as Line B, and included the same volcanic eruption, but showed reductions in the growth of CO2 emission by the turn of the century -- the result of hypothetical government controls.

As it happens, since Hansen's testimony, emissions have grown at a modest rate and Mt. Pinatubo did in fact erupt, though in the early 1990s, not the middle. In other words, the Line B forcings scenario came remarkably close to predicting what actually came to pass

That is a misrepresentation on your part. Mr. Hansen was promoting the line A scenario as what would happen (rapid emisions growth). We actually had line B (modest growth). Line C has no bearing, because we can't prove or disprove it. You lose.

You state that, but provide zero proof in the form of a referance or link. Perhaps you just prefer to be known as a bullshitter?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

As usual, Monkton is a lying. Lying about a real and respected scientist.

‘Hansen has been wrong before’—Maybe, but not about the climate! | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

Objection: In 1988, Hansen predicted dire warming over the next decade -- and he was off by 300%. Why in the world should we listen to the same doom and gloom from him today?

Answer: While in some instances it is ignorant repetition of misinformation, at its source this story is a plain lie.

In 1988, James Hansen testified before the U.S. Senate on the danger of anthropogenic global warming. During that testimony he presented a graph -- part of a paper published soon after. This graph had three lines on it, representing three scenarios based on three projections of future emissions and volcanism.


Line A was a temperature trend prediction based on rapid emissions growth and no large volcanic event; it was a steep climb through the year 2000 and beyond.

Line B was based on modest emissions growth and one large volcanic eruption in the mid 1990s.

Line C began along the same trajectory as Line B, and included the same volcanic eruption, but showed reductions in the growth of CO2 emission by the turn of the century -- the result of hypothetical government controls.

As it happens, since Hansen's testimony, emissions have grown at a modest rate and Mt. Pinatubo did in fact erupt, though in the early 1990s, not the middle. In other words, the Line B forcings scenario came remarkably close to predicting what actually came to pass

That is a misrepresentation on your part. Mr. Hansen was promoting the line A scenario as what would happen (rapid emisions growth). We actually had line B (modest growth). Line C has no bearing, because we can't prove or disprove it. You lose.

You state that, but provide zero proof in the form of a referance or link. Perhaps you just prefer to be known as a bullshitter?

Oh shoot, he didn't quote a bible verse!

Therefore he must be wrong!

Hey stupid, look up "appeal to authority."

 

[Old Rocks]

OldCrocks will never admit he is wrong, no matter how well it's proven, and will never man-up when he's made a mistake.

No religious fundie ever does!

Agreed - but some enjoyment is to be had proving his ignorance yet again...

He'll just ignore it and move right along, quoting the same scriptures from the various bibles.

Check my sig, go right to his quote there and see what happens when he's totally taken apart.

He just runs.

Not at all. Why run from an old fool that cannot support any of his arguements with other than rants or personal invectutive.

Warming ocean contributes to global warming

Warming ocean contributes to global warming
Global warming
The warming of an Arctic current over the last 30 years has triggered the release of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from methane hydrate stored in the sediment beneath the seabed.

Scientists at the National Oceanography Centre Southampton working in collaboration with researchers from the University of Birmingham, Royal Holloway London and IFM-Geomar in Germany have found that more than 250 plumes of bubbles of methane gas are rising from the seabed of the West Spitsbergen continental margin in the Arctic, in a depth range of 150 to 400 metres.

Methane released from gas hydrate in submarine sediments has been identified in the past as an agent of climate change. The likelihood of methane being released in this way has been widely predicted.

The data were collected from the royal research ship RRS James Clark Ross, as part of the Natural Environment Research Council's International Polar Year Initiative. The bubble plumes were detected using sonar and then sampled with a water-bottle sampling system over a range of depths.

The results indicate that the warming of the northward-flowing West Spitsbergen current by 1° over the last thirty years has caused the release of methane by breaking down methane hydrate in the sediment beneath the seabed.

Professor Tim Minshull, Head of the University of Southampton's School of Ocean and Earth Science based at that the National Oceanography Centre, says: "Our survey was designed to work out how much methane might be released by future ocean warming; we did not expect to discover such strong evidence that this process has already started

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Agreed - but some enjoyment is to be had proving his ignorance yet again...

He'll just ignore it and move right along, quoting the same scriptures from the various bibles.

Check my sig, go right to his quote there and see what happens when he's totally taken apart.

He just runs.

Not at all. Why run from an old fool that cannot support any of his arguements with other than rants or personal invectutive.

When I post links, you deny they exist. Which is easy to do for fundies such as yourself.

And really, stop using words you do not understand and cannot spell. It's "invective.'

You continue to show your total lack of education and your desperation to try to "stand tall" with more intellectual people, by trying to use words you don't understand and can't spell, but heard somewhere.

 

[Old Rocks]

No, I do not deny they exist. Problem is that they seem to be from non-science sources stating things that scientists never said.

Post some real information from real scientists. After all, this is a scientific subject.

So show me where 90% of the alpine glaciers are not receding.

Show me that Greenland and Antarctica are not losing ice by the giga-ton.

Show me where the last decade has not been the hottest ever recorded.

Use observations by real scientists. Not Cato Institute whores.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

No, I do not deny they exist.

You do, and you have, every single time.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

they seem to be from non-science sources stating things that scientists never said.

You're a liar.

But, clearly you mean they might have been from non-approved to your religion, sources!

 

[Polk]

HAHAHAH, lying chart?

Source: National Climatic Data Center

That doesn't come from the National Climatic Data Center. It's copied from some guy's blog.

 

[Polk]

Also, climate =/= weather.

 

[saveliberty]

Agreed - but some enjoyment is to be had proving his ignorance yet again...

He'll just ignore it and move right along, quoting the same scriptures from the various bibles.

Check my sig, go right to his quote there and see what happens when he's totally taken apart.

He just runs.

Not at all. Why run from an old fool that cannot support any of his arguements with other than rants or personal invectutive.

Warming ocean contributes to global warming

Warming ocean contributes to global warming
Global warming
The warming of an Arctic current over the last 30 years has triggered the release of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from methane hydrate stored in the sediment beneath the seabed.

Scientists at the National Oceanography Centre Southampton working in collaboration with researchers from the University of Birmingham, Royal Holloway London and IFM-Geomar in Germany have found that more than 250 plumes of bubbles of methane gas are rising from the seabed of the West Spitsbergen continental margin in the Arctic, in a depth range of 150 to 400 metres.

Methane released from gas hydrate in submarine sediments has been identified in the past as an agent of climate change. The likelihood of methane being released in this way has been widely predicted.

The data were collected from the royal research ship RRS James Clark Ross, as part of the Natural Environment Research Council's International Polar Year Initiative. The bubble plumes were detected using sonar and then sampled with a water-bottle sampling system over a range of depths.

The results indicate that the warming of the northward-flowing West Spitsbergen current by 1° over the last thirty years has caused the release of methane by breaking down methane hydrate in the sediment beneath the seabed.

Professor Tim Minshull, Head of the University of Southampton's School of Ocean and Earth Science based at that the National Oceanography Centre, says: "Our survey was designed to work out how much methane might be released by future ocean warming; we did not expect to discover such strong evidence that this process has already started

...and man is responsible for warming ocean currents now? Here's a scientific explanation:


An additional effect of methane release into the atmosphere should be enhanced global warming. Methane itself is a significantly more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and though it oxidizes rapidly, it oxidizes to carbon dioxide. Thus both the methane and its successor gas, carbon dioxide, contribute to the warming of the planet, including the oceans. Dickens recognized that this warming could result in further hydrate dissociation, and additional methane release, in a positive feedback cycle, and wondered how the cycle could stop short of what he considers an implausible outcome: the complete depletion of the oceanic hydrate reservoir. (Nisbet, 1990, may have already have provided at least part of the answer: warming takes longer with sediment depth.)

Another issue Dickens examined is how the warming that produced the Latest Paleocene Thermal Maximum began. He found a triggering mechanism for the warming suggested by Thomas and Shackleton (1995) to be "particularly appealing: a rapid emission of CO¸2 associated with a brief interval of explosive volcanism in the North Atlantic," which warmed the planet.

The volcanism Dickens found appealing took place about 55 million years ago. At that time the configuration of the continents was beginning to assume its modern form. The Atlantic had opened but was considerably smaller than it is today; India was approaching its collision with Asia (which uplifted the Himalayas); Australia had detached from Antarctica. In the far north of the North Atlantic, Greenland had started to separate from Norway. This separation, as with the opening of the Atlantic itself, came as a consequence of the formation of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, which over tens of millions of years was creating an ocean by laying down ocean floor between Africa and Europe on one side and the Americas on the other.

Methane, methane hydrate, and global climate

I have said this time and time again on this board. Volcanoes, the sun and ocean currents cause global warming, not man.

 

[saveliberty]

No, I do not deny they exist. Problem is that they seem to be from non-science sources stating things that scientists never said.

Post some real information from real scientists. After all, this is a scientific subject.

So show me where 90% of the alpine glaciers are not receding.

Show me that Greenland and Antarctica are not losing ice by the giga-ton.

Show me where the last decade has not been the hottest ever recorded.

Use observations by real scientists. Not Cato Institute whores.

I did that already. 72% of the world's ice cap is growing not shrinking.

 

[Sinatra]

+

You can't run from it Old Rocks.

You utilized a Roy Spencer graph in defense of your flat earth warming theory when in fact Dr. Spencer feels quite the opposite regarding man-made global warming. Spencer notes warming and cooling have occurred, and nothing regarding the more recent warming appears in any way remarkable from previous periods. CO2 as a causative agent is likely given far too much importance, the earth's climate is far more vast and complicated than the flat-earth warmers wish to admit, and whatever warming is taking place - even if contributed via CO2, is no big deal.

But you used that graph w/o knowing the source. You regurg. data you cannot understand. You simply parrot the flat earth warmer theory without showing any intellectual curiousity as to the actual "science" behind that theory, or the implications of self interest in coordinating data to support said theory.

What we do know is this - the global warming architects, the figures most responsible for the data which is then re-used repeatedly by other "studies" were found guilty of "hiding the decline" and attempting to aggressively squash any dissent within the scientific community. There has been no appreciable warming in the last decade, and the most recent winters have been among the coldest of the last century.

Perhaps Dr. Spencer - the guy whose graphs you yourself are using, said it best...


This website currently concentrates on the response of clouds to warming, an issue which I am now convinced the scientific community has totally misinterpreted when they have measured natural, year-to-year fluctuations in the climate system. As a result of that confusion, they have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity is low.

...The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might well be the result of….the climate system itself!

Climate change — it happens, with or without our help.


Global Warming: Natural or Manmade? « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.
_________

And you are totally full of shit. 2009 will rank somewhere between the 5th warmest and 2nd warmest year on record in the last 185 years. Depending on how warm December is.

You are just another fool that cannot tell the differance between a transient weather event, and a long term trend.

All of the warmest years on record have been between 1998 and 2009. But you claim a cooling trend. What a fool you are.

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

______

Ah - you are using Roy Spencer's data! Excellent!

Here are some recent observations from Dr. Spencer regarding the the idea of "man-made" global warming...


...As Dick Lindzen alluded to back in 1990, while everyone seems to understand that the greenhouse effect warms the Earth’s surface, few people are aware of the fact that weather processes greatly limit that warming. And one very real possibility is that the 1 deg. C direct warming effect of doubling our atmospheric CO2 concentration by late in this century will be mitigated by the cooling effects of weather to a value closer to 0.5 deg. C or so (about 1 deg. F.) This is much less than is being predicted by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or by NASA’s James Hansen, who believe that weather changes will amplify, rather than reduce, that warming.[/B]

...Global Warming: Natural or Manmade?
“Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution.

...The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might well be the result of….the climate system itself! Because small, chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that is necessary to cause climate change. You don’t need the sun, or any other ‘external’ influence (although these are also possible…but for now I’ll let others work on that). It is simply what the climate system does. This is actually quite easy for meteorologists to believe, since we understand how complex weather processes are. Your local TV meteorologist is probably a closet ’skeptic’ regarding mankind’s influence on climate.

Climate change — it happens, with or without our help.

And here Dr. Spencer shows us how this month's temps are "shaping up" - they are damn COLD!!! (2009 is on the left side)

Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

 

[edthecynic]

Source: National Climatic Data Center

Damn, now aren't you the smart one. You pick 1998 as a starting point, so that in spite of the fact that ten of the years in the last eleven are the warmest years on record, you get a downward trend. Except, of course, when 2010 comes in at warmer than 1998 your silly cherry picked graph is blown to bits.

If you want to lie, choose a dumber crowd to do it in.

LIE? The only liars are the the AGW crowd. And THAT is a fact JACK...

That chart is a lie in so many ways it isn't funny.

First of all the source of the graph is the "what's up with that" website.
Secondly, it is not a chart of the annual temps. According to the NCDC annual temp data 2005 was the warmest YEAR globally in the history of direct instrument measurement, and 2007 tied 1998 for the second warmest year, and every year after 2001 was warmer than 2001. Your chart, on the other hand shows 1998 as the warmest and 2006 as second warmest and 4 of the 7 years after 2001 as cooler than 2001.

And thirdly what you dishonestly did was take a chart for the month of DECEMBER only over that time period rather than a chart of the yearly temps.

This is why I say CON$ are the lowest PREMEDITATED lying scum that ever crawled out of a sewer.

 

[saveliberty]

Damn, now aren't you the smart one. You pick 1998 as a starting point, so that in spite of the fact that ten of the years in the last eleven are the warmest years on record, you get a downward trend. Except, of course, when 2010 comes in at warmer than 1998 your silly cherry picked graph is blown to bits.

If you want to lie, choose a dumber crowd to do it in.

LIE? The only liars are the the AGW crowd. And THAT is a fact JACK...

That chart is a lie in so many ways it isn't funny.

First of all the source of the graph is the "what's up with that" website.
Secondly, it is not a chart of the annual temps. According to the NCDC annual temp data 2005 was the warmest YEAR globally in the history of direct instrument measurement, and 2007 tied 1998 for the second warmest year, and every year after 2001 was warmer than 2001. Your chart, on the other hand shows 1998 as the warmest and 2006 as second warmest and 4 of the 7 years after 2001 as cooler than 2001.

And thirdly what you dishonestly did was take a chart for the month of DECEMBER only over that time period rather than a chart of the yearly temps.

This is why I say CON$ are the lowest PREMEDITATED lying scum that ever crawled out of a sewer.

Your statement in bold is a lie. The source is NOAA. The rest of your comments are pretty much the same. This warmest alarm you sound is for years which never exceeded a temperature of 1.5 degrees warmer than the AVERAGE temperature. Climate goes in cycles and this is certainly no radical shift as you would like us to believe. Go yell fire in someone else's movie theater.

 

[Sinatra]

LIE? The only liars are the the AGW crowd. And THAT is a fact JACK...

That chart is a lie in so many ways it isn't funny.

First of all the source of the graph is the "what's up with that" website.
Secondly, it is not a chart of the annual temps. According to the NCDC annual temp data 2005 was the warmest YEAR globally in the history of direct instrument measurement, and 2007 tied 1998 for the second warmest year, and every year after 2001 was warmer than 2001. Your chart, on the other hand shows 1998 as the warmest and 2006 as second warmest and 4 of the 7 years after 2001 as cooler than 2001.

And thirdly what you dishonestly did was take a chart for the month of DECEMBER only over that time period rather than a chart of the yearly temps.

This is why I say CON$ are the lowest PREMEDITATED lying scum that ever crawled out of a sewer.

Your statement in bold is a lie. The source is NOAA. The rest of your comments are pretty much the same. This warmest alarm you sound is for years which never exceeded a temperature of 1.5 degrees warmer than the AVERAGE temperature. Climate goes in cycles and this is certainly no radical shift as you would like us to believe. Go yell fire in someone else's movie theater.

___

Well said.

The flat earth warmers are now attacking NOAA data???

 

[edthecynic]

LIE? The only liars are the the AGW crowd. And THAT is a fact JACK...

That chart is a lie in so many ways it isn't funny.

First of all the source of the graph is the "what's up with that" website.
Secondly, it is not a chart of the annual temps. According to the NCDC annual temp data 2005 was the warmest YEAR globally in the history of direct instrument measurement, and 2007 tied 1998 for the second warmest year, and every year after 2001 was warmer than 2001. Your chart, on the other hand shows 1998 as the warmest and 2006 as second warmest and 4 of the 7 years after 2001 as cooler than 2001.

And thirdly what you dishonestly did was take a chart for the month of DECEMBER only over that time period rather than a chart of the yearly temps.

This is why I say CON$ are the lowest PREMEDITATED lying scum that ever crawled out of a sewer.

Your statement in bold is a lie. The source is NOAA. The rest of your comments are pretty much the same. This warmest alarm you sound is for years which never exceeded a temperature of 1.5 degrees warmer than the AVERAGE temperature. Climate goes in cycles and this is certainly no radical shift as you would like us to believe. Go yell fire in someone else's movie theater.

Here's the link to the chart:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/ncdc-december-2008.png?w=520&h=374
It's from the what's up with that website and its a chart of the month of December only, not yearly. Just click on it and read the title bar at the top of your browser window.

Again this is why no honest person has any respect for CON$. Even after you give them the truth, they just continue to lie while accusing the person who dares expose them to the truth of lying. Honest people have nothing but contempt for CON$.

 

[Polk]

You can't run from it Old Rocks.

You utilized a Roy Spencer graph in defense of your flat earth warming theory when in fact Dr. Spencer feels quite the opposite regarding man-made global warming. Spencer notes warming and cooling have occurred, and nothing regarding the more recent warming appears in any way remarkable from previous periods. CO2 as a causative agent is likely given far too much importance, the earth's climate is far more vast and complicated than the flat-earth warmers wish to admite, and whatever warming is taking place - even if contributed via CO2, is no big deal.

OldCrocks will never admit he is wrong, no matter how well it's proven, and will never man-up when he's made a mistake.

No religious fundie ever does!

Why would he admit he's wrong when he's not? You guys can huff and puff that "all the scientists are part of a massive conspiracy", but that only makes you look like a jackass.