UAH for September is .6c

[Old Rocks]

God, keep on demostrating just how much of a dumb ass you truly are, Walleyes. So they have people up there blasting snow off of the glaciers, also?

And there is no evidence whatsoever for your claim. Just more lies from you and people like you.

Absolutely anyone that has lived in the Pacific Northwest for the last 50 years has observed the regression of the glaciers on our mountains.

And if you had really taken those geology classes you claim to have taken you would know that the glaciers have been retreating since 1850 withthe exception of two brief periods of advance in the 1970's or there abouts in New Zealand and Switzerland. But hey those are real facts all you've got are feelings.

Geology student you never were. You don't think even remotely like a geologist.

Lordy, lordy, you just made my point exactly.

We saw advances in the glaciers over the whole of the northern hemisphere in the Little Ice Age, and we saw a brief resurgence in the 1970's. Glaciers respond rapidly to temperature.

So, here we are with the glaciers in a rapid retreat, a retreat rate that is accelerating every decade. More than that, the rate of accelaration is also increasing. That tells anyone with the least bit of training in geology that the temperatures are warming, since this is the case for over 90% of the glaciers worldwide.

Retreat of Glaciers in Glacier National Park | Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center (NOROCK)

Now demonstrate the flaw in that logic, faux geologist.

 

[westwall]

God, keep on demostrating just how much of a dumb ass you truly are, Walleyes. So they have people up there blasting snow off of the glaciers, also?

And there is no evidence whatsoever for your claim. Just more lies from you and people like you.

Absolutely anyone that has lived in the Pacific Northwest for the last 50 years has observed the regression of the glaciers on our mountains.

And if you had really taken those geology classes you claim to have taken you would know that the glaciers have been retreating since 1850 withthe exception of two brief periods of advance in the 1970's or there abouts in New Zealand and Switzerland. But hey those are real facts all you've got are feelings.

Geology student you never were. You don't think even remotely like a geologist.

Lordy, lordy, you just made my point exactly.

We saw advances in the glaciers over the whole of the northern hemisphere in the Little Ice Age, and we saw a brief resurgence in the 1970's. Glaciers respond rapidly to temperature.

So, here we are with the glaciers in a rapid retreat, a retreat rate that is accelerating every decade. More than that, the rate of accelaration is also increasing. That tells anyone with the least bit of training in geology that the temperatures are warming, since this is the case for over 90% of the glaciers worldwide.

Retreat of Glaciers in Glacier National Park | Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center (NOROCK)

Now demonstrate the flaw in that logic, faux geologist.

NO WAY! The temperatures are rising? REALLY! Now wait a minute....if we had an ice age a long time ago then I guess yeah sure the temps must be rising, but jeez how long will those darn temperatures be rising for? How long do these things TAKE gosh darn it!

Here's a question for you olfraud, a magma body is injected into country rock at a depth of 5 kilometers. How long does it take for the magma to cool one degree?

 

[Foxfyre]

You can find as many skeptic sites with pretty charts and graphs and 'evidence' of all sorts as can find pro-global warming sites with pretty charts and graphs and 'evidence' of all sorts. But the preponderance of the hard evidence continues to make being a skeptic more credible all the time.

We have been keeping records of short term fluctuations for such a short time, it is impossible to make any kind of credible judgment based on one summer's or one year's data. Or even a hundred years. There are too few recording devices out there and too few people willing to look at the changing physical conditions around the sensors that exist to put a whole lot of faith in them as an accurate guage.

AND. . . .the computer models that create those pretty little graphs have yet to use the known data that we have and re-create the climate conditions that we have now. But we are supposed to trust them re what is coming?

Here's just one example from a skeptic site that links to numerous other pro and skeptic sites:

2009 was another year of global cooling, which saw numerous low temperature and high snowfall records smashed. The Dutch canals froze over for the first time in 12 years, record cold came to Al Gore's home town and ironically a blizzard dumped snow on the Copenhagen convention where world leaders met to try and stop global warming. It was so cold that even the BBC was forced to ask, what happened to global warming? As Climategate would reveal, IPCC scientists had been hard at work hiding evidence of global cooling. Yet the observational evidence cannot be ignored.
Popular Technology.net: Global Cooling in 2009

The fact is that those who want to skew it one way or the other can find plenty of 'ammunition' to support their point of view. And vice versa.

I remain unwilling to sacrifice personal liberties, freedom, opportunities, options, and choices on the great altar of anthropogenic global warming based on science as unproven and uncertain as what we now have.

 

[edthecynic]

You can find as many skeptic sites with pretty charts and graphs and 'evidence' of all sorts as can find pro-global warming sites with pretty charts and graphs and 'evidence' of all sorts. But the preponderance of the hard evidence continues to make being a skeptic more credible all the time.

We have been keeping records of short term fluctuations for such a short time, it is impossible to make any kind of credible judgment based on one summer's or one year's data. Or even a hundred years. There are too few recording devices out there and too few people willing to look at the changing physical conditions around the sensors that exist to put a whole lot of faith in them as an accurate guage.

AND. . . .the computer models that create those pretty little graphs have yet to use the known data that we have and re-create the climate conditions that we have now. But we are supposed to trust them re what is coming?

Here's just one example from a skeptic site that links to numerous other pro and skeptic sites:

2009 was another year of global cooling, which saw numerous low temperature and high snowfall records smashed. The Dutch canals froze over for the first time in 12 years, record cold came to Al Gore's home town and ironically a blizzard dumped snow on the Copenhagen convention where world leaders met to try and stop global warming. It was so cold that even the BBC was forced to ask, what happened to global warming? As Climategate would reveal, IPCC scientists had been hard at work hiding evidence of global cooling. Yet the observational evidence cannot be ignored.
Popular Technology.net: Global Cooling in 2009

The fact is that those who want to skew it one way or the other can find plenty of 'ammunition' to support their point of view. And vice versa.

I remain unwilling to sacrifice personal liberties, freedom, opportunities, options, and choices on the great altar of anthropogenic global warming based on science as unproven and uncertain as what we now have.

As soon as your link chose 1998, an obvious outlier, as their starting point for their trend line they expose their DISHONESTY!!!!!

It's a shame you are too willfully blind to see it.

Here is the trend line for the entire satellite record.

Here is the deliberately dishonest trend line from your dishonest link:

If "the preponderance of the hard evidence continues to make being a skeptic more credible all the time" then why do skeptics resort to such obvious dishonesty???????