Paying the Price, AGW and Canada

One of the primary predictions of global warming is that the weather will have wider and wilder swings, with an overall warming.

Actually, that's dead wrong. A warmer world will have a narrower range of temperatures.

Now Pattycake, you, for sure, are no scientist. So link to a real climatologist that claims that the weather in a rapidly warming world will be less extreme.
 
There has been no warming for the past decade, actually a bit longer. Before that there was a one degree increase in the previous 40 to 50 years. Try looking at the sun for a change...it might lead you to some decent info Empty Rocks.

OK, guy. You are speaking from profound ignorance, using talking points that have no relation to reality.

The last decade has been the warmest on record. 2010 tied 1998 for heat, yet had a moderate El Nino. And a strong La Nina in the last half of the year. Here is Dr. Spencer's graph for troposphere temperatures for the last 32 years. Do you see a cooling in that?

UAH Global Temperature Update for September 2011: +0.29 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Note that since 2001, there has only been one low average temp that was as low as the highest average temps prior to 1997.

Teh graph shows temperatures have been flat or declining since 1998.


Don't be so absolutely stupid about your posted statements, Pattycake. Look at Ian's avatar. It is the curve we are talking about.And there is sure not a decline in temperatures for the last decade.
 
The flat part of the averaged curve on that graph is way above the highest average points, excepting the super El Nino of 1998. In fact, the averaged low point for the last ten years just barely reachs down to the prior high points, again, excepting 1998. And 2010 was just as warm as 1998, with a moderate El Nino at the beginning of the year, and a very strong La Nina at the end of the year.

Pattycake, people like you are willfully ignorant and blind. Cannot accept reality because it does not match the way that you think it ought to be.
 
quote from a very interesting recent lecture by Matt Ridley-
So what’s the problem? The problem is that you can accept all the basic tenets of greenhouse physics and still conclude that the threat of a dangerously large warming is so improbable as to be negligible, while the threat of real harm from climate-mitigation policies is already so high as to be worrying, that the cure is proving far worse than the disease is ever likely to be. Or as I put it once, we may be putting a tourniquet round our necks to stop a nosebleed.

rest of the speech at - Bishop Hill blog - Scientific*heresy


nice discussion of science and pseudoscience, how the two are intertwined, how to recognize the differences.

Wonderful. Now we have gone from no global warming at all, circa 2000. To, yes, there is global warming, but it is not man caused.

Now you are saying, well, yes, we are causing it, but it really doesn't matter as the effects will be harmless.

Strike three, old boy. Peanuts.
 
Don't be so absolutely stupid about your posted statements, Pattycake. Look at Ian's avatar. It is the curve we are talking about.And there is sure not a decline in temperatures for the last decade.

That graph shows flat or decreasing Temperatures since 1998. You have to be exceptionally stupid not to understand that.
 
The flat part of the averaged curve on that graph is way above the highest average points, excepting the super El Nino of 1998. In fact, the averaged low point for the last ten years just barely reachs down to the prior high points, again, excepting 1998. And 2010 was just as warm as 1998, with a moderate El Nino at the beginning of the year, and a very strong La Nina at the end of the year.

Pattycake, people like you are willfully ignorant and blind. Cannot accept reality because it does not match the way that you think it ought to be.

The BEST graph for the last 11 years is flat.

So is the satellite temperature data.

End of story.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top