The 2014/15 El Niño – Part 18 – October 2014 Update – One Last Chance?

[Old Rocks]

Were at 11,600 years of this interglacial. The majority of interglacial last just 10,000 years. When the mechanism turns there wont be a dam thing the warmists will be able to do to stop it. But their excuses to take your freedoms from you will remain the same..

A single major volcanic event would shut them the hell up too. And to think all this marxist warmie bullshit is the brainchild of a few anti-petroleum Bay-Area billionaires. Oh the irony!

Ah, my stupid little Sweetie Corksmoker, link to something other than your asshole to support that statement. Because by USGS figures, a single volcanic event doesn't even register on the scale when compared to the CO2 that we are putting out.

Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview

Volcanic versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions
Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oh goodie, more warmie graphs that're entirely different from last year's warmie graphs...and the year before that...and the year before that. Less than 7% of Americans regard warmie chimera as the issue with which they're most concerned; 93% aren't concerned because many went through the last great chicken little environmental charade.

You remember that one don't you, mamooth? Only 30 or so years ago, less than a mouse fart on the geophysical scale of events? We were all supposed to be buried under the next great glacier by 2014. Well, close enough: the arctic has 500,000 sq. miles of new ice this year. Explain that inconvenient truth away with your cutsie little graphs, genius.


View attachment 32769

Well, my little corksmoker, you chose to repeat that stupid lie.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

IPCC is not science, it's Marxism

"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated." – Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC

 

[skookerasbil]

How many times have we seen this? The AGW crowd makes bold pronunciations about the future of the climate and it ends up being like a dud Hezbollah SCUD missile landing in the middle of the desert. That's how you know this AGW shit is nothing but a gigantic ruse.......the bold pronunciations keep coming and being duds......does not deter these people. Its not about short memories......its about perpetuating the ruse.

bottom line = nobody knows shit about shit about the future of the climate.

 

[Old Rocks]

Pubs.GISS Hansen et al. 1981 Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

Dr. Hansen made these predictions in 1981. They are spot on. That was 33 years ago, when the deniars were stating that there was no warming, period. Today they say, OK, there is warming, but it is part of the natural cycles. However, they cannot name any of the cycles.

 

[jc456]

Tom, you can't cover for ignorance by using hostility. Sure, you can try, but it makes everyone giggle.

Now, since you're so proudly incapable of doing a simple web search, it looks like, as usual, it will be up to the liberals to do the work for you. Don't sweat it. We're used to conservatives sponging off us.

Kool... two predictions that Mamooth is going to regret.. The surface mean has already shown prediction one fallacy. Since Sep 18 the mean is below average by 0.5 deg C

Not if you intentionally alter the data and make it fit the model. ah-hah they gotcha.

 

[jc456]

And the AGW cult proves that they follow a religious belief not based on any real science.

What text in your quote do you believe "proves" that point? I see NOTHING there that even suggests such a contention in the slightest way. Your charge is inappropriate in context, irrational and unsupported by the facts. You're not discussing anything. You're spewing nothing but vapid, inconsequential rant.

ahem.....perhaps the fact that there isn't any scientific data there? Just saying providing a link patting the IPCC on the back and pounding a chest of a nobel prize, doesn't qualify. Lose....

 

[Old Rocks]

JC, are you ever going to back up your ignorant assertations with anything at all? Or are just going to continue to pull silly stinking opinions out of your asshole, opinions that have nothing to do with reality.

 

[jc456]

JC, are you ever going to back up your ignorant assertations with anything at all? Or are just going to continue to pull silly stinking opinions out of your asshole, opinions that have nothing to do with reality.

So old croches, what is it you want me to back up? I have been asking for months now for the experiment that shows what 120 PPM of CO2 will do to the climate. have you or your pals provided that yet?

Oh BTW, my reality is 100 times better than your bleak outlook!!!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Pubs.GISS Hansen et al. 1981 Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

Dr. Hansen made these predictions in 1981. They are spot on. That was 33 years ago, when the deniars were stating that there was no warming, period. Today they say, OK, there is warming, but it is part of the natural cycles. However, they cannot name any of the cycles.

That discredited piece of trash?

You people have got to get new material. James Hansen's paper has been shredded so many times its not even confetti. And you still believe it?

 

[Old Rocks]

Now Billy Boob, the stuff you pull out of your asshole stinks just as bad as that of JC. You assert that Dr. Hansen's paper has been shredded? LInk?

Really, I don't expect that I will see any such thing from you, you have already shown an absolute aversion to presenting any kind of evidence for your insane posts.