July numbers

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Old Rocks, Aug 3, 2018.

  1. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    58,242
    Thanks Received:
    7,087
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +18,346
    [​IMG]

    We just finished a La Nina, and the lowest we saw was 0.19. Now we are in a neutral Enso, and have hit 0.32 already. Prior to 1997, there was only one month warmer that that. And we are headed into an El Nino, so most of the months for the rest of this year are going to have an even higher anomaly.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    30,317
    Thanks Received:
    3,486
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +11,033
    A single month means nothing looking forward. At least according to the IPCC.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Billy_Bob
    Offline

    Billy_Bob Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2014
    Messages:
    13,309
    Thanks Received:
    2,606
    Trophy Points:
    1,010
    Location:
    Top Of The Great Divide
    Ratings:
    +11,664
    :auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg::auiqs.jpg:

    BWhaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahah

    What a load of crap... Your forecasted (and wrong) EL Niño crashed and burned.. Now it is rapidly cooling again heading fast to another stacked La Niña event....

    Watching your epic fail at every failed alarmist pontification is funny as hell to watch...
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. BuckToothMoron
    Offline

    BuckToothMoron Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2016
    Messages:
    6,362
    Thanks Received:
    1,148
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +6,284
    Climate is hard. The best way to make certain you are wrong is to try and predict the climate.
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  5. Sunsettommy
    Online

    Sunsettommy VIP Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2018
    Messages:
    1,541
    Thanks Received:
    209
    Trophy Points:
    65
    Ratings:
    +1,336
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. Sunsettommy
    Online

    Sunsettommy VIP Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2018
    Messages:
    1,541
    Thanks Received:
    209
    Trophy Points:
    65
    Ratings:
    +1,336
    You continue to IGNORE the Per Decade warming rate prediction/projection failure which UAH chart make clear showing only a .15C/decade rate, which is 50% too low to support the AGW conjecture.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  7. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    58,242
    Thanks Received:
    7,087
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +18,346
    So, with a lower than predicted warming rate, we are getting more results, ice melting, extreme precipitation events, fires, droughts than predicted. That is so comforting. LOL 1956 to 1999, one year with over 7 million acres burned in the US. 2000 to present, ten years with over 7 million acres burned. And this year looks like another with more than 7 million acres burned.
     
  8. Sunsettommy
    Online

    Sunsettommy VIP Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2018
    Messages:
    1,541
    Thanks Received:
    209
    Trophy Points:
    65
    Ratings:
    +1,336
    The current warming rate are nearly identical to previous warming rates back to the mid 1880's, which means it is within historical trends of the last 150 years, long before CO2 started going up, which doesn't change the per decade warming rate at all.

    Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

    "A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

    An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

    Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

    I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

    So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

    Here are the trends and significances for each period:"

    ================


    I see that warmist loons completely ignored this thread, gee I wonder why.....

    A Geological Perspective of Wildfires

    ================


    In this thread below, you made this fine comment that YOU otherwise ignore its relevance in other wildfire threads:

    "The Forest Service does not have the money for proper thinning and management of the forests. When they overrun their fire budget, which is every year, then they take money from the other parts of their budget to fight the fires. Separate the fire budget, make it stand alone and supplement it as needed, then the FS can start the needed management of the forests."

    Are Environmentalists To Blame For All These Fires?

    ================

    Then we have this thread showing based on a published research report that 84% of all wildfires are started by humans, in the thread your comment tried to ignore that inconvenient revelation to attack fossil fuel companies, who didn't start any of the fires.

    Your attack on fossil fuel companies is irrational and pointless, since they don't commit arson or be careless about campfires. THEY ARE NOT STARTING FIRES, THEY ARE NOT CREATING CONDITIONS FOR BIG FIRES EITHER!

    Stupid People Start 90% of California Wildfires
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2018
  9. Billy_Bob
    Offline

    Billy_Bob Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2014
    Messages:
    13,309
    Thanks Received:
    2,606
    Trophy Points:
    1,010
    Location:
    Top Of The Great Divide
    Ratings:
    +11,664
    Your are moron...

    In a cooling world there is LESS water vapor aloft which is exactly what we are seeing. This results in drought in drought prone areas and deserts.. Then add stupid people like you not being careful with fire and the poor forest management which refused to allow people to clean out the under brush and you get what we have today... A fire storm.

    Funnier still is this has happened over and over again long before man inhabited these areas by natural lightening caused fires which burned yearly and were not put out. this natural process kept these fire storms to a minimum until man began putting them out.

    Interesting how you make a false equivalency to CAGW when man did indeed cause the situation but it was for other reasons and alarmists are to stupid to see it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2018
  10. miketx
    Offline

    miketx Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2015
    Messages:
    47,038
    Thanks Received:
    5,120
    Trophy Points:
    1,870
    Ratings:
    +52,690
    Weather loons: "We been doing this for 150 years!"

    Earth: "Jesus! I'm 4 billion years old. Stfu already!"
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 3

Share This Page