Lets have some fun at the expense of Libs

[edthecynic]

I do understand that. I am wondering where this moisture was evaporated from. What superheated part of the earth did it come from?

In order for your claim to have any substance, you must know where this moisture came frmo and that it came from a part of the earth that is much warmer than usual.

First of all it doesn't have to be " much warmer than usual" just warmer than the air it collides with. And the warm moist air that caused the bulk of the snow in the nor'easter that hit the east coast came from the Atlantic Ocean.

No, back up. You claimed that these blizzards could be attributed to global warming cause of the increased evaporation due to global warming.

There is either global warming or their isn't. This year, temps seems to be down and there seems to be alot of snow. GW advocates claim this is global warming. So what part of the earth did this superheated moisture that fell on DC come from?

First of all, you gave no "back up" for your stupidity. And I already told you the warmer moister air came from the Atlantic Ocean as it ALWAYS does with all nor'easters.

HowStuffWorks "What is a Nor'easter?"

A Nor'easter is named for the winds that blow in from the northeast and drive the storm up the east coast along the Gulf Stream, a band of warm water that lies off the Atlantic coast.

There are two main components to a Nor'easter:

• Gulf Stream low-pressure system - (counter-clockwise winds) These systems generate off the coast of Florida. The air above the Gulf Stream warms and spawns a low-pressure system. This low circulates off the southeastern U.S. coast, gathering warm air and moisture from the Atlantic. Strong northeasterly winds at the leading edge of the storm pull it up the east coast.
• Arctic high-pressure system - (clockwise winds) As the strong northeasterly winds pull the storm up the east coast, it meets with cold, Arctic air blowing down from Canada. When the two systems collide, the moisture and cold air produce a mix of precipitation.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Gee a few posts earlier we were not warming since 1998, now it's only 4 years.

Notice when CON$ lie about temp they ALWAYS use the UAH data that used the opposite sign to "correct" for diurnal satellite drift. Even after Christy and Spencer were caught with their cooked numbers and they were corrected and the correct chart was posted. CON$ NEVER use the correct data. Three guess why, and the first two don't count. :

What's wrong you having a hard time reading, if you notice right above the first graph it states "Global temperatures have remained reasonably flat since a decline in 1998 and cooling trends are now being observed despite the fact that carbon dioxide levels have increased in the atmosphere (see graph below). "

Prove the graph I provided was incorrect!

Christy and Spencer have already admitted that the chart you posted used the opposite sign in correcting for diurnal satellite drift. The chart I posted uses the correct sign and shows warming.

Here is a report co-authored by Christy where he admits that once his errors were corrected his UAH data matches the surface temp readings and other satellite data like RSS.

http://www.climatescience.gov/Librar...al-execsum.pdf

Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming
near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to
challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-
induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial
global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde
data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant
discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and
radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets
have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.

Even with the data corrected it still doesn't show a significant warming over the last 10 years. And it doesn't show that CO2 has any dramatic effect.

 

[ItHappens]

Less people lost their jobs last month than expected. The economy is improving.

Actually, slowing loss is an improvement over the previous rate of loss. If a man is bleeding to death and you shove some Quickclot in his wound and the bleeding slows to a trickle or a rate where you can replace his blood while operating on the wound, that's making progress. Still a long way to go and a lot left to do, but you're still making progress.


Dumbass.

I'm sure that's comforting to the 33,000 who lost jobs in January.
Less is the new more!

 

[ItHappens]

This thread certainly lost its fun.

No prayer in school! (Unless you are Muslim)

Or No Prayer in School. God I hope I pass this test.

 

[edthecynic]

What's wrong you having a hard time reading, if you notice right above the first graph it states "Global temperatures have remained reasonably flat since a decline in 1998 and cooling trends are now being observed despite the fact that carbon dioxide levels have increased in the atmosphere (see graph below). "

Prove the graph I provided was incorrect!

Christy and Spencer have already admitted that the chart you posted used the opposite sign in correcting for diurnal satellite drift. The chart I posted uses the correct sign and shows warming.

Here is a report co-authored by Christy where he admits that once his errors were corrected his UAH data matches the surface temp readings and other satellite data like RSS.

http://www.climatescience.gov/Librar...al-execsum.pdf

Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming
near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to
challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-
induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial
global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde
data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant
discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and
radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets
have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.

Even with the data corrected it still doesn't show a significant warming over the last 10 years. And it doesn't show that CO2 has any dramatic effect.

You're blind. Maybe this chart will help.

 

[California Girl]

No idiot we say its global warming too

Actually, Idiot, it's called 'climate change'.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Even with the data corrected

So you admit your data and your claims were incorrect?

it still doesn't show a significant warming over the last 10 years.

Please define 'significant warming'.

 

[MaggieMae]

Lets have some fun at the expense of Libs

Cold temps and snowstorms help prove Global Warming they say.

Lets use the same reasoning in other matters.


Kansas City is a more violent city than it was last year. This is proven by the drop in violent crime.

Boy you people are really uninformed. Go read up on global warming. Pockets of localized cold weather does not mean the entire globe is cooling.

We are having fun at the expense of these incredibly stupid things some of you cons have to say. Such an embarrassment to human intelligence

I'm actually enjoying a single thread where they all gather together in one place to exhibit their significant lack of knowledge. I say let's keep it going!

 

[MaggieMae]

Boy you people are really uninformed. Go read up on global warming. Pockets of localized cold weather does not mean the entire globe is cooling.

We are having fun at the expense of these incredibly stupid things some of you cons have to say. Such an embarrassment to human intelligence

Good point.... except.... every time it gets to be unseasonably hot, you libtards always yell.... "global warming". But yet, while it might be hot there, it is cooler than normal somewhere else.
How about a little consistency.

You guys claim that CO2 raises temps... no doubt about it and all the smart people know it.

So... did all the co2 all the sudden vanish on the east coast? Where did it go? Does the US get credit then for reducing global warming since those gases aren't there to warm us up anymore?

Of course, when Libs say "global warming" they use GLOBAL statistics, but when CON$ claim global cooling they not only use very LOCAL stats, they claim snow in the dead of Winter, even when the temp the day of the snowfall was above average, is a new Ice Age.

No, no no, Ed. Now they've got what, a half-dozen emails to justify the fact that global warming is a hoax. Forget thousands of pages of science, those emails are now gospel.

 

[MaggieMae]

Warmer earth evaporates more ocean water.

More moisture in the air means more rain and snow.

More rain and snow means more eratic weather patterns.

Its really fucking simple but some people are so hacked up in their brains due to fanatical love of party over facts they are unable to see anything.

So... let me try to understand this.....

The temperature of Washington DC in the middle of winter is so warm that massive amounts of moisture are sent into the atmosphere.. therefore.. all this moisture has to fall back to the earth?

Can you explain where this moisture is coming from in the winter months? Is it your claim that there is massive evaporation in weather conditions that average around 30 degrees?

Do you understand that air at 30 degrees is very dry?

Wow... you are more stupid than i thought.

Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions

 

[mudwhistle]

Less people lost their jobs last month than expected. The economy is improving.

Actually, slowing loss is an improvement over the previous rate of loss. If a man is bleeding to death and you shove some Quickclot in his wound and the bleeding slows to a trickle or a rate where you can replace his blood while operating on the wound, that's making progress. Still a long way to go and a lot left to do, but you're still making progress.


Dumbass.

Well....it could also mean that most of the people that were on the chopping-block have been let loose.

Now...if things get worse...which will happen if health care is passed and tax hikes go into effect you will see a flood of new layoffs. Then all of those high-fives for only 440,000 jobs lost a month will seem a bit premature. All it takes is a few more regulations and another banking crisis, which is in the works, and another 8 million people will lose their jobs this year. I figure if Obama gets his way unemployment will be around 25% by the end of the year. Then Obama will have to figure out a totally new way of counting the lost jobs.

Maybe they can say they were all of those low paying jobs Bush created when he was president.

Pfffft....who cares.