Nearly 1000 Record Low Temperatures Set

[skookerasbil]

Oh....in case anybody missed it >>>>


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBO2IstMi2A]CO2 is a trace gas. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[PredFan]

Why do you think that the physics of GHGs is any differant for those made by man, and those created by geological events? Are you truly so stupid that you think that nature differentiates on the basis of manmade and nature created?

Because man adds like .00000000001% to it.

Are you purposely lying, or are you just that fucking stupid? Man has raised the CO2 level to 400 ppm from 280 ppm, it has not been that high for several million years. We have raised the CH4 from 700 ppb to over 1800 ppb. On the decade level, CH4 is over 100 times as effective of a GHG as CO2.

Bull shit. Neither you nor any scientist has ever been able to show that man caused GHGs to rise, and that it was definitely man and not natural.

 

[PredFan]

Why do you think that the physics of GHGs is any differant for those made by man, and those created by geological events? Are you truly so stupid that you think that nature differentiates on the basis of manmade and nature created?

CO2 follows rising temperatures not the other way round. We keep asking you to provide evidence via an experiment that what you claim happens.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo]CO2 experiment - YouTube[/ame]

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

http://www.pcc.edu/about/events/sustainability-training/documents/co2-aquariums-greenhouse.pdf

http://www.starhop.com/library/pdf/studyguide/elementary/GloJar-7.pdf

The Creative Science Centre - by Dr Jonathan P. Hare

Not one if those links shows that GHGs don't follow rising temps instead of cause them. You fail.

 

[PredFan]

You guys post ignorant flap yap. How about some real science to back up your opinion?

We ask the same of you, and so far you have not provided anything that refuted our contentions. You provided links to science that doesn't, but that you get no credit for.

 

[PredFan]

​

Why do you think that the physics of GHGs is any differant for those made by man, and those created by geological events? Are you truly so stupid that you think that nature differentiates on the basis of manmade and nature created?

Speaking of stupidity, how about the so called thought leaders who were not finding scientific correlation in their data to support their hypothesis so they skewed/manipulated the data to support their cause to keep people like you perpetuating a hypothesis as absolute scientific fact?

So, what you are saying is that virtually all of the scientists on this planet are in on a conspiracy to create fraudulent data to support the hypothesis of global warming? For there is not one scientific society on earth, not even in Outer Slobovia, that disputes that the warming is a fact, and a clear and present danger. Nor one National Acedemy of Sciences of any nation. Nor one major University.

And many here are providing on a daily basis articles from peer reviewed journals showing evidence of the warming and the dangers that it is creating, while all you guys provide is unsupported flap-yap and spews from frauds like Monkton.

Yes there are, and we have shown them to you and you claim that they are deniers and therefor not real scientists.

But that is simply your attempt to dodge the point. The point is that even if the planet is warming, there is zero actual scientific data that supports the accusation that man is causing it, and that is most definitely not a claim supported by all scientists.

 

[PredFan]

The whole extreme weather stuff has been 100% debunked.


The Fantasy of Extreme Weather | Behind The Black



It is simply one of the latest bomb throwing ruse's amped up by the climate OCD's........following all the other crap like drought, snow, hurricanes etc........all of which were BS bomb throwing attempts that got blown to shit.

And I always have to ask myself if the science is in and it is irrefutable, then why the fraud, lies, and intimidation?

 

[PredFan]

Well, one would not expect an ignoramous like you to be aware of proxies that geologists routinely use to determine many facts concerning past times.

http://www.awi.de/index.php?id=1731&type=123&filename=awi.pdf

AOL Search

Paleoclimates

Now, of course, you will not even look at any of this. It might damage your willfull ignorance. But there is a lot of information just in those three sites, and even more in sites on USGS and NOAA pages. With a computer in the home, there is no reason for anyone to be bone ignorant.

I've got 30 paleo studies that say it was warmer during the Med. Warm Period.. Those studies were NEVER MEANT to be combined to form a GLOBAL avg temp for 1300 BC. But yet --- your clowns are attempting to do that over and over again.. And they continue to get caught fabricating a faulty conclusion.. Claims are REPEATEDLY made that we know the Global Avg temp not only for 1300BC but for 1301 and 1340 and 1350 BC --- thus we can determine the RATE of the ancient warmings and coolings. NONE of that is indicated in the proxy science..

Divining temps from tree rings in Scandiv. and mudbug borrows in the Congo do NOT result in a GLOBAL AVG estimate with the TIME RESOLUTION or ACCURACY needed to make your case.. A large fraction of Climate Scientists also doubt the claims being made from Paleo proxy studies of temperature.. ESPECIALLY to try and create a Global average to compare to the modern era Global warming..

You should know this.. But your BELIEFS override your scientific rigor and discipline..

Really???????????????? But you are to shy to post them?

Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia

From the US National Academy of Science.

Two millennia? TWO MILLENIA? You realize that in geologic terms that's a snap of the fingers? You AGW morons cherry pick your data.

 

[flacaltenn]

I've got 30 paleo studies that say it was warmer during the Med. Warm Period.. Those studies were NEVER MEANT to be combined to form a GLOBAL avg temp for 1300 BC. But yet --- your clowns are attempting to do that over and over again.. And they continue to get caught fabricating a faulty conclusion.. Claims are REPEATEDLY made that we know the Global Avg temp not only for 1300BC but for 1301 and 1340 and 1350 BC --- thus we can determine the RATE of the ancient warmings and coolings. NONE of that is indicated in the proxy science..

Divining temps from tree rings in Scandiv. and mudbug borrows in the Congo do NOT result in a GLOBAL AVG estimate with the TIME RESOLUTION or ACCURACY needed to make your case.. A large fraction of Climate Scientists also doubt the claims being made from Paleo proxy studies of temperature.. ESPECIALLY to try and create a Global average to compare to the modern era Global warming..

You should know this.. But your BELIEFS override your scientific rigor and discipline..

Really???????????????? But you are to shy to post them?

Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia

From the US National Academy of Science.

Two millennia? TWO MILLENIA? You realize that in geologic terms that's a snap of the fingers? You AGW morons cherry pick your data.

Paleo reconstructions attempting to find a GLOBAL temperature avg 2000 yrs ago are a fools errand anyway Predfan.. Even the authors admit to the weaknesses..

But the paleo studies exist REGIONALLY and are consistent for a particular time epoch and location.. It's better left to INFER general trends and temperature ranges than to pretend you've constructed a REAL GLOBAL AVG with anything NEAR the accuracy or time resolution of the MODERN temperature record data..

Yet--- GoldiRocks just eats this shit right up....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Warmers respond:

a. Denier!

b. Just as predicted by the models

c. thats weather not climate!

d. that's climate not weather!

e. Denier!!!

 

[RollingThunder]

Because man adds like .00000000001% to it.

Are you purposely lying, or are you just that fucking stupid? Man has raised the CO2 level to 400 ppm from 280 ppm, it has not been that high for several million years. We have raised the CH4 from 700 ppb to over 1800 ppb. On the decade level, CH4 is over 100 times as effective of a GHG as CO2.

Bull shit. Neither you nor any scientist has ever been able to show that man caused GHGs to rise, and that it was definitely man and not natural.

Ah, but they have indeed done just that. You're just too ignorant about science and way too much of a dumbass to know that. Something beyond your comprehension called isotopic analysis clearly demonstrates that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is coming from the burning of fossil fuels.

 

[RollingThunder]

Speaking of stupidity, how about the so called thought leaders who were not finding scientific correlation in their data to support their hypothesis so they skewed/manipulated the data to support their cause to keep people like you perpetuating a hypothesis as absolute scientific fact?

So, what you are saying is that virtually all of the scientists on this planet are in on a conspiracy to create fraudulent data to support the hypothesis of global warming? For there is not one scientific society on earth, not even in Outer Slobovia, that disputes that the warming is a fact, and a clear and present danger. Nor one National Acedemy of Sciences of any nation. Nor one major University.

And many here are providing on a daily basis articles from peer reviewed journals showing evidence of the warming and the dangers that it is creating, while all you guys provide is unsupported flap-yap and spews from frauds like Monkton.

Yes there are, and we have shown them to you and you claim that they are deniers and therefor not real scientists.

But that is simply your attempt to dodge the point. The point is that even if the planet is warming, there is zero actual scientific data that supports the accusation that man is causing it, and that is most definitely not a claim supported by all scientists.

You are such an ignorant idiot, ProdFcked, and so full of fraudulent denier cult myths. You haven't supported your moronic denial of reality with any actual scientific evidence but you're so stupid you're completely unable to distinguish real scientific evidence from the pseudo-science and lies you find on your denier cult blogs.

There is a great deal of excellent evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming that you are too brainwashed to accept and too retarded to understand.

Nobody said that that "all scientists" support and affirm the theory of AGW but the fact is that the vast majority of the world's scientists do support and affirm the scientific theory of AGW and the conclusions of the climate scientists on the dangers to our world and our civilization posed by AGW.

Here's the truth about the overwhelming scientific consensus on AGW and none of your frantic repetitions of your denier cult myths is going to change that truth or make you any less like the completely ignorant, brainwashed idiot that you are.

Scientific opinion on climate change
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;
Terms of Use - You are free to:
Read and Print our articles and other media free of charge.
Share and Reuse our articles and other media under free and open licenses.)

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), summarized below:

* Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5]
* Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6]
* "Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming."[7]
* "[...] the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time"[8]
* "The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources)"[9]​

Mod Edit -- Please do not copy and paste entire articles.

 

[flacaltenn]

Everyone of those statements were based on PREDICTIONS of at least 2 ---> 5 degC rise by 2100..

This is a value that does NOT hinge on CO2 levels. Since the temp rise expected from CO2 alone is more on the order of 1.5degC.. The fantasyland of AGW has INVENTED a planetary climate that is UNSTABLE and goes BESERK and becomes SUICIDAL if even that 1degC "trigger" is pulled..

There is NO solid science connecting the moderate temp. rise due to CO2 to a scenario of positive feedbacks and climate destruction that supports all that hysteria you just posted. And very little in the historical record could be construed to support that wacky theory.. But YET --- YOU believe it on faith BECAUSE all of those politically charged statements describe what MIGHT happen if the whacky theory were to be true..

 

[RollingThunder]

Everyone of those statements were based on PREDICTIONS of at least 2 ---> 5 degC rise by 2100..

This is a value that does NOT hinge on CO2 levels. Since the temp rise expected from CO2 alone is more on the order of 1.5degC.. The fantasyland of AGW has INVENTED a planetary climate that is UNSTABLE and goes BESERK and becomes SUICIDAL if even that 1degC "trigger" is pulled..

There is NO solid science connecting the moderate temp. rise due to CO2 to a scenario of positive feedbacks and climate destruction that supports all that hysteria you just posted. And very little in the historical record could be construed to support that wacky theory.. But YET --- YOU believe it on faith BECAUSE all of those politically charged statements describe what MIGHT happen if the whacky theory were to be true..

Just more unsupported, anti-science denier cult myths from one of the forum's resident retards. The science supporting CO2's effect on global temperatures and the added effect of water vapor feedback is quite "solid" and convincing to virtually the entire world scientific community, as shown in my last post. Your idiotic denial of that science is based entirely on your politics and prejudices, not on any contrary evidence. You believe your moronic denier cult myths because of your misplaced faith in your rightwing puppet masters who have economic ties to the continued profits of the fossil fuel industry. You are a troll, fecalhead, and you're too stupid to understand the science involved in this issue and too brainwashed to accept the science even if you could understand it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Did I miss a refutation of my major points in that tantrum Princess?


The CO2 effect is NOT SUFFICIENT TO IGNITE the planet.. The rest of the AGW shit is unfounded..

The IPCC can't even decide on KEY parameters for the models after 30 yrs of screaming hysterically.
And yet all those Chicken Little statements you produced were based on a religious acceptance of the modeling..
Tell me Tink --- NO BIG BOLD COLORFUL page fillers.. Just a SINGLE NUMBER..

1) What is the atmos. residence time of CO2?? Just a single number please..
2) What is the Global value for "climate sensitivity" required to convert thermal forcing events to a surface temperature?

You're response should consist of 2 numbers.. Nothing more..

 

[skookerasbil]

IDK......I cant read Thunders font......needs to be a bit bigger!!!








By the way s0n.....whats with all the perpetual anger? Always angst and anger........miserable all the time!! LOL.......like most all far left guys!!

 

[RollingThunder]

Did I miss a refutation of my major points in that tantrum Princess?

You manage to miss pretty much everything, fecalhead, probably because you're so extremely retarded.

The CO2 effect is NOT SUFFICIENT TO IGNITE the planet.. The rest of the AGW shit is unfounded..

Repeating your moronic myths over and over doesn't change the fact that they are complete bullshit, fecalhead, even if you put them in 'bold' letters.

The scientific reality is that the excess CO2 that mankind has pumped into the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate (currently about 34 billion tons a year) is already warming the planet and increasing atmospheric water vapor content (by about 4% so far) which is adding to the warming effect of the CO2.

The IPCC can't even decide on KEY parameters for the models after 30 yrs of screaming hysterically.

The climate models that the climate scientists have developed are doing just fine. It is only in the crackpot myths of your little cult of reality denial that the models are seen as 'wrong' or 'not working'. In the real world, they have been checked by hindcasting and they are proving to be very useful in understanding what's happening with the Earth's climate.

And yet all those Chicken Little statements you produced were based on a religious acceptance of the modeling.

That's another one of the myths of your cult. In reality, the statements of the world's scientific organizations are based on the laws of physics coupled with the mountains of data and direct physical evidence that climate scientists have accumulated. The conclusions of the world's climate scientists on the reality and effects of AGW are not based on models, you anti-science retard.

Tell me Tink --- NO BIG BOLD COLORFUL page fillers.. Just a SINGLE NUMBER..
1) What is the atmos. residence time of CO2?? Just a single number please..
2) What is the Global value for "climate sensitivity" required to convert thermal forcing events to a surface temperature?
You're response should consist of 2 numbers.. Nothing more..

You poor confused moron. The "residence time of CO2" and "climate sensitivity" aren't precise "SINGLE NUMBERS"; they are ranges that are not yet precisely determined. So what? Scientists have a pretty good idea of the possible ranges for those values and whether they are on the high end or the low end, we're still facing catastrophic warming for centuries.

 

[flacaltenn]

Did I miss a refutation of my major points in that tantrum Princess?

You manage to miss pretty much everything, fecalhead, probably because you're so extremely retarded.

The CO2 effect is NOT SUFFICIENT TO IGNITE the planet.. The rest of the AGW shit is unfounded..

Repeating your moronic myths over and over doesn't change the fact that they are complete bullshit, fecalhead, even if you put them in 'bold' letters.

The scientific reality is that the excess CO2 that mankind has pumped into the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate (currently about 34 billion tons a year) is already warming the planet and increasing atmospheric water vapor content (by about 4% so far) which is adding to the warming effect of the CO2.






The climate models that the climate scientists have developed are doing just fine. It is only in the crackpot myths of your little cult of reality denial that the models are seen as 'wrong' or 'not working'. In the real world, they have been checked by hindcasting and they are proving to be very useful in understanding what's happening with the Earth's climate.

And yet all those Chicken Little statements you produced were based on a religious acceptance of the modeling.

That's another one of the myths of your cult. In reality, the statements of the world's scientific organizations are based on the laws of physics coupled with the mountains of data and direct physical evidence that climate scientists have accumulated. The conclusions of the world's climate scientists on the reality and effects of AGW are not based on models, you anti-science retard.

Tell me Tink --- NO BIG BOLD COLORFUL page fillers.. Just a SINGLE NUMBER..
1) What is the atmos. residence time of CO2?? Just a single number please..
2) What is the Global value for "climate sensitivity" required to convert thermal forcing events to a surface temperature?
You're response should consist of 2 numbers.. Nothing more..

You poor confused moron. The "residence time of CO2" and "climate sensitivity" aren't precise "SINGLE NUMBERS"; they are ranges that are not yet precisely determined. So what? Scientists have a pretty good idea of the possible ranges for those values and whether they are on the high end or the low end, we're still facing catastrophic warming for centuries.

Wait.. Wait.. I can't comment yet.. Still laughing hysterically...
"No numbers.. Just ranges".. ... Hold on.....................still giggling .............
""Not yet precisely determined" ............ OUCH!!! ...... Wait.......

.......... OK...

And JUST HOW much will going from 280 to 560ppm CO2 warm the planet -- if you just consider the addition of CO2??

Somewhere between 1.0 and 1.6degC ... Everyone agrees on that number.. It's derived in every Atmos Physic textbook.
So --- HOW does this trigger APPOCALYPTIC CLIMATE CHANGE if some of the NATURAL variations we see from AMO/PDO/ENSO are in the range 0.5degC??? And those NATURAL cycles occur every couple decades?

 

[RollingThunder]

Did I miss a refutation of my major points in that tantrum Princess?

You manage to miss pretty much everything, fecalhead, probably because you're so extremely retarded.


Repeating your moronic myths over and over doesn't change the fact that they are complete bullshit, fecalhead, even if you put them in 'bold' letters.


The scientific reality is that the excess CO2 that mankind has pumped into the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate (currently about 34 billion tons a year) is already warming the planet and increasing atmospheric water vapor content (by about 4% so far) which is adding to the warming effect of the CO2.


The climate models that the climate scientists have developed are doing just fine. It is only in the crackpot myths of your little cult of reality denial that the models are seen as 'wrong' or 'not working'. In the real world, they have been checked by hindcasting and they are proving to be very useful in understanding what's happening with the Earth's climate.


That's another one of the myths of your cult. In reality, the statements of the world's scientific organizations are based on the laws of physics coupled with the mountains of data and direct physical evidence that climate scientists have accumulated. The conclusions of the world's climate scientists on the reality and effects of AGW are not based on models, you anti-science retard.

Tell me Tink --- NO BIG BOLD COLORFUL page fillers.. Just a SINGLE NUMBER..
1) What is the atmos. residence time of CO2?? Just a single number please..
2) What is the Global value for "climate sensitivity" required to convert thermal forcing events to a surface temperature?
You're response should consist of 2 numbers.. Nothing more..

You poor confused moron. The "residence time of CO2" and "climate sensitivity" aren't precise "SINGLE NUMBERS"; they are ranges that are not yet precisely determined. So what? Scientists have a pretty good idea of the possible ranges for those values and whether they are on the high end or the low end, we're still facing catastrophic warming for centuries.

Wait.. Wait.. I can't comment yet.. Still laughing hysterically

Not too surprising. Morons like you often laugh hysterically at things you are too stupid to comprehend.

"No numbers.. Just ranges".. ... "Not yet precisely determined"
And JUST HOW much will going from 280 to 560ppm CO2 warm the planet -- if you just consider the addition of CO2??
Somewhere between 1.0 and 1.6degC ... Everyone agrees on that number.. It's derived in every Atmos Physic textbook.

LOLOLOLOL.....oh, fecalhead, your inability to understand anything is just amazing....."1.0 - 1.6degC" is exactly what is called a 'range' of values. Not a "SINGLE NUMBER", as you so idiotically demanded.

And why on Earth would anyone with more than half a brain think that "just considering the addition of CO2" to global warming and ignoring the water vapor feedback has anything to do with the real world? You try so hard to be a deceptive little troll, fecalhead, but you're just too dim-witted to pull it off.

Water Vapor Feedback Loop Will Cause Accelerated Global Warming, Professor Warns
ScienceDaily
Feb. 20, 2009 — Here’s yet another reason to hate humidity: it expands global warming, says a Texas A&M University professor. Andrew Dessler, a professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences who specializes in research on climate, says that warming due to increases in greenhouse gases will lead to higher humidity in the atmosphere. And because water vapor itself is a greenhouse gas, this will cause additional warming. This process is known as water vapor feedback and is responsible for a significant portion of the warming predicted to occur over the next century. “It’s a vicious cycle – warmer temperatures mean higher humidity, which in turn leads to even more warming,” Dessler explains. The perspective by Dessler and co-author Steven Sherwood of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales is published in the journal Science. In the article, they review and summarize the peer-reviewed evidence in support of a strong water vapor feedback and conclude that the evidence supporting it is overwhelming.

“For years, there was a debate over this mechanism, with some even questioning if the water vapor feedback existed at all. But recent work on this feedback has moved its existence and strength beyond argument,” Dessler adds. Predictions of significant global warming over the next 100 years by climate models require a strong water vapor feedback. Recent estimates suggest the earth will warm from 2 to 4 degrees Celsius (4 to 8 degrees Fahrenheit) over the next century – a scenario that could have devastating long-term consequences. “Everything shows that the climate models are probably getting the water vapor feedback right, which means that unless we reduce emissions, it is going to get much, much warmer on our planet by the end of the century,” he adds.

 

[orogenicman]

CO2 follows rising temperatures not the other way round. We keep asking you to provide evidence via an experiment that what you claim happens.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo"]CO2 experiment - YouTube[/ame]

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

http://www.pcc.edu/about/events/sustainability-training/documents/co2-aquariums-greenhouse.pdf

http://www.starhop.com/library/pdf/studyguide/elementary/GloJar-7.pdf

The Creative Science Centre - by Dr Jonathan P. Hare

Sorry, didn't listen to the whole video, but did the scientist realize that heat and visible light are two different things?

I'm sure he did. Did you know that it wasn't visible light the camera was seeing, but infrared, instead? Of course you didn't. Otherwise, you wouldn't have posted such a stupid statement.

 

[Abraham3]

The Earth will decide what temperature she wants, when she wants, and how she wants. This has been the case for 4 billion years. Why do some think something man-made in the last 50 years can change that?

Why do you think that the physics of GHGs is any differant for those made by man, and those created by geological events? Are you truly so stupid that you think that nature differentiates on the basis of manmade and nature created?

CO2 follows rising temperatures not the other way round. We keep asking you to provide evidence via an experiment that what you claim happens.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~acarlson/Other/Shakun_Carlson_QSR_2010.pdf

Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag