Places where Global Warming doesn't exist..

[CrusaderFrank]

The theory of AGW is as well proven as evolution.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Nobody has yet posted an article from a peer reviewed source that in any way falsifies the premises of AGW.

Yes, I have studied the BEST data. You can too, and will look less the fool is you do so.

Home|BerkeleyEarth.org

Don't know what to do here OldRocks.. I've shown you multiple studies that fail to confirm CO2 causation in the DESERT at NIGHT without the presence of WATER VAPOR.. Yet you insist that there is nothing left to study on CO2 as the primary driver.. CLEARLY you have work to do to refute those studies.. Have at it.. And while you're at it, explain the proxy record events where CO2 follows temp and not the other way.

And what part of your handicap caused you to miss my confession above that I believe in the general warming trend. Thus to me -- the BEST study doesn't matter.. I'm not denying the general warming.. Just the accuracy of judging it by GLOBAL AVERAGES, the matching of it to poor proxy records, and the blatantly biased juggling that's been done to the Surface temp records over the years.

And FWIW -- I (we) are also extremely skeptical of our ability to EXTRAPOLATE future temps from models that are constructed from the biased assumption of CO2 being the primary driver and the kiddy science that follows on assumptions of various feedbacks and what man will pour into the atmos in next 100 years..

So good for the Koch Bros.. They funded real science. Just like they fund the onlly REAL science shows on cable thru NOVA on NPT..

Maybe you should move to StillWater NY -- a truely AGW-Free zone... you might not get as many panic attacks..

The people who make up the American Institute of Physics are hardly into kiddy science. That organization includes the American Geophysical Union. Their statement on global warming is as unequivocal as it gets. Another group, the Geological Society of America, have a statement just as unequivocal.

Now my travels have been rather limited, unlike Trakar whose stomping grounds have been the whole world, mostly in Canada, as far north as Yellowknife, and the mountain ranges west of the Missippi and Missouri, I have personally observed the decreases in glacies, and the increased heat and dryout of the forests in the American West.

Yes, the Koch Bros do fund many science programs. Then turn around and deny what the scientists state in these programs. That is their right.

While we are slightly below the extrapolated temperatures, primarily due to the aerosols from India and China, we are well above extrapolated effects of those temperatures. The Arctic Ice is where it should be in 2050 by the extrapolations. The melting of the West Antarctic Shelf is ahead of the extrapolations. And the amount of extreme weather and the cost of that weather is also well ahead of the extrapolations.

Translation: I have no explanation for the flat temperature charts so I'm going to bore you with my irrelevant AGW stories

 

[flacaltenn]

The theory of AGW is as well proven as evolution.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Nobody has yet posted an article from a peer reviewed source that in any way falsifies the premises of AGW.

Yes, I have studied the BEST data. You can too, and will look less the fool is you do so.

Home|BerkeleyEarth.org

Don't know what to do here OldRocks.. I've shown you multiple studies that fail to confirm CO2 causation in the DESERT at NIGHT without the presence of WATER VAPOR.. Yet you insist that there is nothing left to study on CO2 as the primary driver.. CLEARLY you have work to do to refute those studies.. Have at it.. And while you're at it, explain the proxy record events where CO2 follows temp and not the other way.

And what part of your handicap caused you to miss my confession above that I believe in the general warming trend. Thus to me -- the BEST study doesn't matter.. I'm not denying the general warming.. Just the accuracy of judging it by GLOBAL AVERAGES, the matching of it to poor proxy records, and the blatantly biased juggling that's been done to the Surface temp records over the years.

And FWIW -- I (we) are also extremely skeptical of our ability to EXTRAPOLATE future temps from models that are constructed from the biased assumption of CO2 being the primary driver and the kiddy science that follows on assumptions of various feedbacks and what man will pour into the atmos in next 100 years..

So good for the Koch Bros.. They funded real science. Just like they fund the onlly REAL science shows on cable thru NOVA on NPT..

Maybe you should move to StillWater NY -- a truely AGW-Free zone... you might not get as many panic attacks..

The people who make up the American Institute of Physics are hardly into kiddy science. That organization includes the American Geophysical Union. Their statement on global warming is as unequivocal as it gets. Another group, the Geological Society of America, have a statement just as unequivocal.

Now my travels have been rather limited, unlike Trakar whose stomping grounds have been the whole world, mostly in Canada, as far north as Yellowknife, and the mountain ranges west of the Missippi and Missouri, I have personally observed the decreases in glacies, and the increased heat and dryout of the forests in the American West.

Yes, the Koch Bros do fund many science programs. Then turn around and deny what the scientists state in these programs. That is their right.

While we are slightly below the extrapolated temperatures, primarily due to the aerosols from India and China, we are well above extrapolated effects of those temperatures. The Arctic Ice is where it should be in 2050 by the extrapolations. The melting of the West Antarctic Shelf is ahead of the extrapolations. And the amount of extreme weather and the cost of that weather is also well ahead of the extrapolations.

Boy -- you have all bases covered dontcha? Celebrity scientists, personal Gulliver's Travel tales, anecdotal weather observations and of course the DEVASTING INCREASE in weather related COSTS in just ONE YEAR... You're a hoot..

That increased cost for last year is just because the heat has made tornadoes smarter. They have LEARNED where we live now.. Be Afraid.. A 0.5C degree rise can cost $TRILLs IN JUST ONE YEAR.

Do you ever read your posts?? I mean with your brain engaged. Not just for spelling and linking errors..

 

[bobgnote]

No one is arguing about the world warming.. That's not the point. It comes down to theory that MAN is causing the warming..

Besides -- have you studied the BEST study to see if they were talking about the MANIPULATED temp data OR the raw data with REASONABLE corrections.. I also question the use of a SINGLE GLOBAL surface temp average to describe what's going on.. Hence the title of this thread..

Did that hurt your head bob?
Don't know what to do here OldRocks.. I've shown you multiple studies that fail to confirm CO2 causation in the DESERT at NIGHT without the presence of WATER VAPOR.. Yet you insist that there is nothing left to study on CO2 as the primary driver.. CLEARLY you have work to do to refute those studies.. Have at it.. And while you're at it, explain the proxy record events where CO2 follows temp and not the other way.

And what part of your handicap caused you to miss my confession above that I believe in the general warming trend. Thus to me -- the BEST study doesn't matter.. I'm not denying the general warming.. Just the accuracy of judging it by GLOBAL AVERAGES, the matching of it to poor proxy records, and the blatantly biased juggling that's been done to the Surface temp records over the years.

And FWIW -- I (we) are also extremely skeptical of our ability to EXTRAPOLATE future temps from models that are constructed from the biased assumption of CO2 being the primary driver and the kiddy science that follows on assumptions of various feedbacks and what man will pour into the atmos in next 100 years..

You didn't link any studies of CO2, H2O, at night, in deserts, when I have been at USMB, in the past two months. I guess your Fatass-study-shit happened, some time ago.

Since I started reading and posting, at environment, you posted a graph, with a CO2 plot, which went way up, concurrent with human defoliation and fossil fuel consumption. Since you are not denying warming, I guess the only thing wrong with your brain is that fat ass, you have your head stuck in.

Pull your head out of your fat ass, and you can see humans have to steward the planet, through warming, toward cooling, away from catastrophe, whether humans cut and cleared and drilled and mined and burned, or not. Ready, set, PULL! Not out, yet? I'm surprised it isn't too warm, in there. Pull out, throw some shit into the fan.

Pull your head out of your ass, and it's a lot easier, to see how other pubs are doing really well, such as the Kochs and Trakar, with their eyes on the road, ahead.

Nope bob, definately produced those desert nighttime studies since you've graced us with your wonderful presence.. Went right the hell over your head...

Duh, yup, duh yup, "definately" I guess I have to try to find which of your posts those "studies" are linked, Fatass, since you are so reliable at graphs and links (not), and you are some cabin boy, who claims to have worked at tech, when we know you aren't worth a shit, except to your own, big, FAT ASS.

 

[Old Rocks]

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Global Climate Change

Given the knowledge gained from paleoclimatic studies, several long-term causes of the current warming trend can be eliminated. Changes in Earth’s tectonism and its orbit are far too slow to have played a significant role in a rapidly changing 150-year trend. At the other extreme, large volcanic eruptions have cooled global climate for a year or two, and El Niño episodes have warmed it for about a year, but neither factor dominates longer-term trends.

As a result, greenhouse gas concentrations, which can be influenced by human activities, and solar fluctuations are the principal remaining factors that could have changed rapidly enough and lasted long enough to explain the observed changes in global temperature. Although the 3rd IPCC report allowed that solar fluctuations might have contributed as much as 30% of the warming since 1850, subsequent observations of Sun-like stars (Foukal et al., 2004) and new simulations of the evolution of solar sources of irradiance variations (Wang et al., 2005) have reduced these estimates. The 4th (2007) IPCC report concluded that changes in solar irradiance, continuously measured by satellites since 1979, account for less than 10% of the last 150 years of warming.

Greenhouse gases remain as the major explanation. Climate model assessments of the natural and anthropogenic factors responsible for this warming conclude that rising anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases have been an increasingly important contributor since the mid-1800s and the major factor since the mid-1900s (Meehl et al., 2004). The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is now ~30% higher than peak levels that have been measured in ice cores spanning 800,000 years of age, and the methane concentration is 2.5 times higher. About half of Earth’s warming has occurred through the basic heat-trapping effect of the gases in the absence of any feedback processes. This “clear-sky” response to climate is known with high certainty. The other half of the estimated warming results from the net effect of feedbacks in the climate system: a very large positive feedback from water vapor; a smaller positive feedback from snow and ice albedo; and sizeable, but still uncertain, negative feedbacks from clouds and aerosols. The vertical structure of observed changes in temperature and water vapor in the troposphere is consistent with the anthropogenic greenhouse-gas “fingerprint” simulated by climate models (Santer et al., 2008). Considered in isolation, the greenhouse-gas increases during the last 150 years would have caused a warming larger than that actually measured, but negative feedback from clouds and aerosols has offset part of the warming. In addition, because the oceans take decades to centuries to respond fully to climatic forcing, the climate system has yet to register the full effect of gas increases in recent decades.

These advances in scientific understanding of recent warming form the basis for projections of future changes. If greenhouse-gas emissions follow the current trajectory, by 2100 atmospheric CO2 concentrations will reach two to four times pre-industrial levels, for a total warming of less than 2 °C to more than 5 °C compared to 1850. This range of changes in greenhouse gas concentrations and temperature would substantially alter the functioning of the planet in many ways. The projected changes involve risk to humans and other species: (1) continued shrinking of Arctic sea ice with effects on native cultures and ice-dependent biota; (2) less snow accumulation and earlier melt in mountains, with reductions in spring and summer runoff for agricultural and municipal water; (3) disappearance of mountain glaciers and their late-summer runoff; (4) increased evaporation from farmland soils and stress on crops; (5) greater soil erosion due to increases in heavy convective summer rainfall; (6) longer fire seasons and increases in fire frequency; (7) severe insect outbreaks in vulnerable forests; (8) acidification of the global ocean; and (9) fundamental changes in the composition, functioning, and biodiversity of many terrestrial and marine ecosystems. In addition, melting of Greenland and West Antarctic ice (still highly uncertain as to amount), along with thermal expansion of seawater and melting of mountain glaciers and small ice caps, will cause substantial future sea-level rise along densely populated coastal regions, inundating farmland and dislocating large populations. Because large, abrupt climatic changes occurred within spans of just decades during previous ice-sheet fluctuations, the possibility exists for rapid future changes as ice sheets become vulnerable to large greenhouse-gas increases. Finally, carbon-climate model simulations indicate that 10–20% of the anthropogenic CO2 “pulse” could stay in the atmosphere for thousands of years, extending the duration of fossil-fuel warming and its effects on humans and other species. The acidification of the global ocean and its effects on ocean life are projected to last for tens of thousands of years.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now Flats, find me any scientific society from any nation in the world that has a position statement that says the opposite as these do. Even one from Outer Slobovia. Surely you can do that, correct?

 

[flacaltenn]

The morons dismiss the sun because of total irradiance TSI without a single mention of spectral line stability.. All based on STUDYING OTHER STARS!!! We have only been able to observe spectral shifts accurately for 30 years.

That's not a SCIENCE doc rockhead.. That's an OPINION/POSITION paper. Written by the mgt of the org.. Are you telling me there's not a handful of SMART dissenters in that org? Get off your elitist ---"the debate is over" horse and cut the crap.. Did you ever find a study confirming AGW in the Desert, at night, without water vapor effects? Don't suppose you have..

 

[uscitizen]

Idiots do not even understand the term "Global".

 

[flacaltenn]

Before I go do anymore work for you Rocks.. At LEAST FIND RECENT statements from those orgs. Some that MIGHT be POST ClimateGate.. I refuse to get into a credentials war with you -- because that's scientifically irrelevent.. But obviously, since you can''t tell the diff between a political position paper and science -- you need to know that ALL those orgs have ABUNDANT numbers of dissenters within. Even my IEEE has made brainfart statements on AGW while 65% of membership has no support for AGW theory at all..

SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - Challenge UN IPCC & Gore | Climate Depot

The rapidity of the global warming establishment's collapse would have been unheard of just two years ago. Prominent physicist Hal Lewis resigned from American Physical Society, calling "Global warming the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life." UK astrophysicist Piers Corbyn was blunt about what Climategate revealed: "The case for climate fears is blown to smithereens...the whole theory should be destroyed and discarded and UN conference should be closed."

Prominent Geologist Dr. Easterbrook Slams Geological Society of America's climate statement 'as easily refuted by data that clearly shows no correlation between CO2 and global climate change' & American Meteorological Society Members Reject Man-made Climate Claims: 75% Do Not Agree With UN IPCC Claims -- 29% Agree 'Global Warming is a Scam' & Meteorologists Reject U.N.'s Global Warming Claims: Only 1 in 4 American Meteorological Society broadcast meteorologists agree with UN
In 2009, the world's largest science group, the American Chemical Society (ACS) was “startled” by an outpouring of scientists rejecting man-made climate fears, with many calling for the removal of the ACS's climate activist editor.

Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook, a professor of geology at Western Washington University, summed up the scandal on December 3, 2010: "The corruption within the IPCC revealed by the Climategate scandal, the doctoring of data and the refusal to admit mistakes have so severely tainted the IPCC that it is no longer a credible agency."

 

[flacaltenn]

Idiots do not even understand the term "Global".

Actually, in the old days of GW,, I used to think that anyone who based their position on that single Global Mean Annual Surface Temperature was an idiot.. That surface data base is better than tree rings, but the bias, measurement errors, and patent FRAUD in manipulating a GMAST was laughable when trying to measure the ENTIRE globe temperature to within 0.05degC... In that sense, it was insufficient..

Thank GOD that the satellite data is in better hands and serving as a check for hanky panky (for the most part). THAT --- I will put my faith in and abandon contorted interpretation of proxies like fossilized insect parts, tree rings that display more variation than tea leaves, and wild ass guesses prentending to be 0.1degC accuracy. But take a guess USCitizen, who exactly wants to IGNORE the satellite and primary deal with thousands of surface stations? Yup -- the warmer in chiefs...

My observation about AGW-FRee zones is somewhat tongue in cheek. But what is NOT satire is the myriad of experiments that should CONFIRM man's complicity in the global fever, but don't...

 

[bripat9643]

UAH Global Temperature Update for May 2012: +0.29°C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Note that the temps for April and May exceed anything prior to 1998. Not at all flat.

That doesn't prove temperatures haven't been flat, you stupid dipstick.

 

[bobgnote]

UAH Global Temperature Update for May 2012: +0.29°C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Note that the temps for April and May exceed anything prior to 1998. Not at all flat.

That doesn't prove temperatures haven't been flat, you stupid dipstick.

What that linked information proves is temperatures are going up, at an accelerating rate, buttpunk.

So what do you want to actually discuss, or do you just want to fire away?

 

[bripat9643]

UAH Global Temperature Update for May 2012: +0.29°C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Note that the temps for April and May exceed anything prior to 1998. Not at all flat.

That doesn't prove temperatures haven't been flat, you stupid dipstick.

What that linked information proves is temperatures are going up, at an accelerating rate, buttpunk.

So what do you want to actually discuss, or do you just want to fire away?

Wrong, moron. Temperatures have been flat or declining since 1998. Anyone who can read a graph understands that.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, Pattycake, you can make any stupid claim you like. And no matter how many times you make the claim, it will still never be the truth. It will just remain stupid.

The average for 2010 matched that of 1998. Since 1998, the lowest points on the average have been above most of the average before 1998. Anyone can look at the graph and see that.

UAH Global Temperature Update for May 2012: +0.29°C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

 

[bobgnote]

So shut the fuck up, buttpunk.

When a plot of a function rises, that isn't "flat," you goddamn moron. Somebody hire a Mexican, to help the retard put his pants back on. Here, asshole, "pantalones!"

 

[Big Fitz]

Still a religious issue. Science doesn't matter. The faith of ecofascism desires to spread and will use every means necessary to 'prove' itself in deluded evangelism. They don't care about contrary facts. Their faith is supreme and you must submit or you should be marginalized and/or purged.

 

[flacaltenn]

So shut the fuck up, buttpunk.

When a plot of a function rises, that isn't "flat," you goddamn moron. Somebody hire a Mexican, to help the retard put his pants back on. Here, asshole, "pantalones!"

Also "rising" doesn't mean it's ACCELERATING like some "buttpunks" claim. Now does it pothead?? Or is that calculus too difficult for you?

 

[bobgnote]

So shut the fuck up, buttpunk.

When a plot of a function rises, that isn't "flat," you goddamn moron. Somebody hire a Mexican, to help the retard put his pants back on. Here, asshole, "pantalones!"

Also "rising" doesn't mean it's ACCELERATING like some "buttpunks" claim. Now does it pothead?? Or is that calculus too difficult for you?

Either condition, of temperature rising at a progressively faster rate or successive hot years, crowded together strongly suggest average global temperature rise is accelerating, you stupid wingpunk from a Log Cabin Club closet-race.

Of course, out-gassing and wingpunk resistance to change might just lead, to a steady rise, in temperature. But if more top-end years start crowding together, that represents or at least suggests ACCELERATION, of temperature rise, you miserable, Fatass-queer!

The increase in three-atom and bigger atmospheric molecules will include more CO2, CH4, and H2O, which will certainly tend, to accelerate the rise, in temperatures. If you don't think it's already happening, it's because your queer head is up your punk ass, and it's warmer than it should be, already. You don't think it'll get hotter, so eat shit.

 

[flacaltenn]

Temperatures have DEcelerated (but may still be rising) over the past decade. As measured by SOME surface temperature data sets. OTHERS have artifacts in them that just shouldn't be there, but still show DEceleration over the past decade. If you're seeing something else, it's chemically induced or an artifact of sleeping thru math classes.....

See if you can follow the first couple charts on THIS page...

Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Note that when you do a subtraction of Dr. Spencer's chart and one of the "warmer" charts, you get this large 0.4degC JUMP at about 1996 to 1998.. Here's the homework assignment.

You really think that is real?? Why doesn't it appear in Dr. Spencer data prep from the same raw data?

I know South Park is on -- and you GTG, but you might also look at the Troposphere Satellite data chart and note that it looks nothing like your sheer hysterical hockey stick.. IT SHOULD be tracking surface rates and accelerations pretty closely over 50 years or so.. Is it? (Not a trick question). Go google troposphere, brush your teeth and stop talking back to grown-ups...

 

[bobgnote]

Temperatures have DEcelerated (but may still be rising) over the past decade. As measured by SOME surface temperature data sets. OTHERS have artifacts in them that just shouldn't be there, but still show DEceleration over the past decade. If you're seeing something else, it's chemically induced or an artifact of sleeping thru math classes.....

See if you can follow the first couple charts on THIS page...

Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Note that when you do a subtraction of Dr. Spencer's chart and one of the "warmer" charts, you get this large 0.4degC JUMP at about 1996 to 1998.. Here's the homework assignment.

You really think that is real?? Why doesn't it appear in Dr. Spencer data prep from the same raw data?

I know South Park is on -- and you GTG, but you might also look at the Troposphere Satellite data chart and note that it looks nothing like your sheer hysterical hockey stick.. IT SHOULD be tracking surface rates and accelerations pretty closely over 50 years or so.. Is it? (Not a trick question). Go google troposphere, brush your teeth and stop talking back to grown-ups...

I know you are a goddamned queer, who can't read a graph, and you seldom post one, so jump in Pinatubo and report on what happens to your happy ass, when you pound ash up in there.

By 1996-8, you mean the post-Pinatubo ENSO spike. What about it, Fatass? The major trend is upward, it'll tend to heat up, toward the poles, warming is accelerating, and you don't have a stick, so suck a puck, you ranting, big-assed bitch.

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries