Brrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!

[k2skier]

It wasn't warming during the solar minimum. It hasn't been warming since 1998. Yes we have had some of the warmest years due to declining from a peak but declining we are. As for the slowness of cooling see post #68.

8 of the 10 hottest years occurred between 1997 and 2008. How is that possible if we're cooling?

how is a sample of roughly 100 years significant when discussing a 6 billion year old entity?

Because this is when the industrial revolution occurred and it is impacting us now, and possibly in the future.

Ice core samples tell us a lot about the climate, much longer than 100 years, but it isn't conclusive, just another factor in the many to look at.

here's a thought; maybe dinosaur flatulence killed them off and it wasn't a comet

 

[del]

8 of the 10 hottest years occurred between 1997 and 2008. How is that possible if we're cooling?

how is a sample of roughly 100 years significant when discussing a 6 billion year old entity?

Because this is when the industrial revolution occurred and it is impacting us now, and possibly in the future.

Ice core samples tell us a lot about the climate, much longer than 100 years, but it isn't conclusive, just another factor in the many to look at.

here's a thought; maybe dinosaur flatulence killed them off and it wasn't a comet

it was a meteorite actually.

 

[edthecynic]

Why don't you wait for 5 years before declaring that this isn't just the tapering of an upswing?

What does that have to do with the claim that "it hasn't been warming since 1998," rebutted by the chart?

You post the same chart over and over again, not like it's changed recently ... and if this has been refuted with other evidence then why would it hold any water when repeated. You are sounding like ... well .. and environut parrot.

How about you post one that shows data for the last billion years which shows no other such rises in temperature?

If, it has been refuted you could link to it.

I have to keep reposting it because the deniers keep repeating the same false claim, that heating stopped after 1998. That chart is the surface temp, not 2 miles high in the troposphere, through 2008 and the most you could honestly say is we've had 2 years of cooling which hardly indicates a trend.

 

[KittenKoder]

What does that have to do with the claim that "it hasn't been warming since 1998," rebutted by the chart?

You post the same chart over and over again, not like it's changed recently ... and if this has been refuted with other evidence then why would it hold any water when repeated. You are sounding like ... well .. and environut parrot.

How about you post one that shows data for the last billion years which shows no other such rises in temperature?

If, it has been refuted you could link to it.

I have to keep reposting it because the deniers keep repeating the same false claim, that heating stopped after 1998. That chart is the surface temp, not 2 miles high in the troposphere, through 2008 and the most you could honestly say is we've had 2 years of cooling which hardly indicates a trend.

No, us who have not swallowed the myth and hoax of global warming are asking for all evidence, not just a graph that shows less than .01% of the time life on earth has existed.

 

[edthecynic]

You post the same chart over and over again, not like it's changed recently ... and if this has been refuted with other evidence then why would it hold any water when repeated. You are sounding like ... well .. and environut parrot.

How about you post one that shows data for the last billion years which shows no other such rises in temperature?

If, it has been refuted you could link to it.

I have to keep reposting it because the deniers keep repeating the same false claim, that heating stopped after 1998. That chart is the surface temp, not 2 miles high in the troposphere, through 2008 and the most you could honestly say is we've had 2 years of cooling which hardly indicates a trend.

No, us who have not swallowed the myth and hoax of global warming are asking for all evidence, not just a graph that shows less than .01% of the time life on earth has existed.

But the claim I was rebutting was from 1998, a period of time completely covered by the chart I supplied.

 

[KittenKoder]

If, it has been refuted you could link to it.

I have to keep reposting it because the deniers keep repeating the same false claim, that heating stopped after 1998. That chart is the surface temp, not 2 miles high in the troposphere, through 2008 and the most you could honestly say is we've had 2 years of cooling which hardly indicates a trend.

No, us who have not swallowed the myth and hoax of global warming are asking for all evidence, not just a graph that shows less than .01% of the time life on earth has existed.

But the claim I was rebutting was from 1998, a period of time completely covered by the chart I supplied.

If the claim was repeated after the first time this "evidence" of yours was posted, why would you think that posting the same chart would do more than give us who have not repeated the claim more ways to make you look wrong? Which is the end result, if that's all you have then you have nothing.

 

[code1211]

Oh Old rocks, what did you think of this?

For individual stations, on individual dates, true. Yet, by looking at all the measurements taken over the years, we can see whether these stations are showing a general warming or cooling for that particular station.

The moral is that you fools will grab anything at all to back up your misbegotten ideology.

He states that you would have to have stacks of thermometers 50 ' high for any accuracy. No stations are doing that.

This link leads to a chart that shows the GISS temperatures recorded thrugh 1999 and "same" temperatures after the revision. Every temperature has been revised. In about 1970, apparently, the raw data was good. Every reading before 1970 was to high. Every reading after 1970 was too low.

ALL of the revisions accentuate the rise of temperature from 1970 onward as compared to the reading before. I don't know how the reading are taken or revised. It just seems odd that as the heat island effect should become more and more pronounced, the revisions upward become more and more extreme.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Questions on the evolution of the GISS temperature product « Watts Up With That?


Blink comparator of GISS USA temperature anomaly - h/t to Zapruder

 

[KittenKoder]

For individual stations, on individual dates, true. Yet, by looking at all the measurements taken over the years, we can see whether these stations are showing a general warming or cooling for that particular station.

The moral is that you fools will grab anything at all to back up your misbegotten ideology.

He states that you would have to have stacks of thermometers 50 ' high for any accuracy. No stations are doing that.

This link leads to a chart that shows the GISS temperatures recorded thrugh 1999 and "same" temperatures after the revision. Every temperature has been revised. In about 1970, apparently, the raw data was good. Every reading before 1970 was to high. Every reading after 1970 was too low.

ALL of the revisions accentuate the rise of temperature from 1970 onward as compared to the reading before. I don't know how the reading are taken or revised. It just seems odd that as the heat island effect should become more and more pronounced, the revisions upward become more and more extreme.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Questions on the evolution of the GISS temperature product « Watts Up With That?


Blink comparator of GISS USA temperature anomaly - h/t to Zapruder

Very curious .... perhaps the environuts could explain why the corrections are so convenient?

 

[code1211]

8 of the 10 hottest years occurred between 1997 and 2008. How is that possible if we're cooling?

how is a sample of roughly 100 years significant when discussing a 6 billion year old entity?

Because this is when the industrial revolution occurred and it is impacting us now, and possibly in the future.

Ice core samples tell us a lot about the climate, much longer than 100 years, but it isn't conclusive, just another factor in the many to look at.

here's a thought; maybe dinosaur flatulence killed them off and it wasn't a comet

One of those dinosaur guys pointed out that at the layer of iridium, there are no dinosaur fossils. He said that if the big rock was what killed the dinos, this layer should be thick with fossils and yet there are none.

He concluded that they must all have been dead prior to the impact.

 

[del]

What a pointlessly unpleasant response to OR.

What bug crawled up your ass that you feel the need to insult this guy simple because he posted something that you don't agree with?

Everything you said you could have said with adding ad hominen insults.

Has he insulted you personally or something?

Do you guys have a history I am unaware of?

Yes, he made a bald statement that Dr. Hansen was doctoring his data. That just happens to be the worst thing you can accuse any scientist of. He also has posted accusations concerning many people, including the President, that are simply scurilious and without basis.

He did not like what I thought of him and his post and has been hunting my posts and posting his drivel after each. Someone that is taking this medium way to seriously for his mental health.

old rock is a scurrilous lying crock of shit (this is not a flame, its old rocks words with old rocks name placed in front)

old crock knowingly posted false information in environment under climate change

how can I address old crocks post here, I will have to spend hours looking for the answer like before and than I find out old rock willingly and knowingly posted a false report, not only did old man post the false report but old man had a rebutal ready in case he got found out

this kind of stuff makes me sick, further look at the vile old man says about others, and than we are suppose to take his word and if we dont we get old crokes vile mouth


http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/73527-climate-change-the-simple-argument.html


old rock is a scurrilous lying crock of shit (this is not a flame, its old rocks words with old rocks name placed in front)

there you go, you do nothing but lie, I dare somebody to defend old crock, go to my post, show me how I am wrong and I will show you I am the better man and take down my post, I have done it twice already, but not over facts I posted but over how I misunderstood someone

so go ahead, the next one who defends old cock and makes him sound like anything but what he is will get me hounding them day and night.

no, you won't.

 

[Meister]

Yes, he made a bald statement that Dr. Hansen was doctoring his data. That just happens to be the worst thing you can accuse any scientist of. He also has posted accusations concerning many people, including the President, that are simply scurilious and without basis.

He did not like what I thought of him and his post and has been hunting my posts and posting his drivel after each. Someone that is taking this medium way to seriously for his mental health.

From what I've been seeing Old Rocks, your as much to blame as he. You've been hunting him out also. Just sayin....

Sorry for going off topic, but krotchdog has been trolling oldrocks and kd puts his flaming line in every post.

It's a 2 way street there. Old Rocks has been baiting him, also.

 

[edthecynic]

No, us who have not swallowed the myth and hoax of global warming are asking for all evidence, not just a graph that shows less than .01% of the time life on earth has existed.

But the claim I was rebutting was from 1998, a period of time completely covered by the chart I supplied.

If the claim was repeated after the first time this "evidence" of yours was posted, why would you think that posting the same chart would do more than give us who have not repeated the claim more ways to make you look wrong? Which is the end result, if that's all you have then you have nothing.

Where's the "logic" in that? Since the chart shows heating didn't end in 1998, then how can posting it again give you MORE ways to make me look wrong???

You are saying deniers can post the same lies over and over but the same lies must be rebutted in new ways each time they are retold. That's some handicap you deniers feel you must have!!! LOL

 

[KittenKoder]

But the claim I was rebutting was from 1998, a period of time completely covered by the chart I supplied.

If the claim was repeated after the first time this "evidence" of yours was posted, why would you think that posting the same chart would do more than give us who have not repeated the claim more ways to make you look wrong? Which is the end result, if that's all you have then you have nothing.

Where's the "logic" in that? Since the chart shows heating didn't end in 1998, then how can posting it again give you MORE ways to make me look wrong???

You are saying deniers can post the same lies over and over but the same lies must be rebutted in new ways each time they are retold. That's some handicap you deniers feel you must have!!! LOL

No, by repeatedly posting the same chart while others have demonstrated multiple sources, multiple findings, and posed other larger questions is either a sign of avoiding those and just focusing on the one thing you can prove, or that your evidence isn't based on enough facts to give a bigger picture than that.

So here, one such question I asked, where's the data for the last billion years?

 

[American Horse]

And scientists admitting earth's temperatures have remained stagnant this decade, with a current cooling trend that could very well extend out to a 30-year cooling trend. Of course they also warn that after these 30 years, global warming could be back more than ever. (strike up the doom n gloom music here)

Of particular note are these scientists admitting they really have no clue why the earth has cooled in recent years. Folks, they have never really had a clue - man-made global warming is merely another religion. Al Gore is its savior - Hansen its John-the-Baptist - and the IPCC its version of the Medieval Catholic Church.

Global Warming: On Hold?: Discovery News

Hell even an infidel like myself knows the reasons. We are at a solar minimum. An extended one. So far in 2009 alone there had been 90 days without sunspots. Corresponding with that is the Pacific Decadal Ocillation. That sucker has shifted and is expected to provide us poor souls with 30 years of cooling.

It won't matter a bit. Like the Global War on Terror has been replaced by the Overseas Contingency Operations, Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) has been replaced by Climate Change (ACC) .

Here's a link to a chart showing Sunspot Activity correlated with global climate change going back 7,500 years with the data collected from ice cores, tree rings, and historical records.
7,500 YEAR CHART
CHART LEGEND

 

[Old Rocks]

If the claim was repeated after the first time this "evidence" of yours was posted, why would you think that posting the same chart would do more than give us who have not repeated the claim more ways to make you look wrong? Which is the end result, if that's all you have then you have nothing.

Where's the "logic" in that? Since the chart shows heating didn't end in 1998, then how can posting it again give you MORE ways to make me look wrong???

You are saying deniers can post the same lies over and over but the same lies must be rebutted in new ways each time they are retold. That's some handicap you deniers feel you must have!!! LOL

No, by repeatedly posting the same chart while others have demonstrated multiple sources, multiple findings, and posed other larger questions is either a sign of avoiding those and just focusing on the one thing you can prove, or that your evidence isn't based on enough facts to give a bigger picture than that.

So here, one such question I asked, where's the data for the last billion years?

In the rocks, where it has always been. However, that is relevant only in that the past climate catastrophes are recorded there. You go back that far, not only do you have a differant continetal configuration, you have a differant atmosphere.

 

[edthecynic]

If the claim was repeated after the first time this "evidence" of yours was posted, why would you think that posting the same chart would do more than give us who have not repeated the claim more ways to make you look wrong? Which is the end result, if that's all you have then you have nothing.

Where's the "logic" in that? Since the chart shows heating didn't end in 1998, then how can posting it again give you MORE ways to make me look wrong???

You are saying deniers can post the same lies over and over but the same lies must be rebutted in new ways each time they are retold. That's some handicap you deniers feel you must have!!! LOL

No, by repeatedly posting the same chart while others have demonstrated multiple sources, multiple findings, and posed other larger questions is either a sign of avoiding those and just focusing on the one thing you can prove, or that your evidence isn't based on enough facts to give a bigger picture than that.

So here, one such question I asked, where's the data for the last billion years?

OK, here's your diversionary chart.
Now it's your turn, how does this chart show whether or not we have had warming since 1998?

 

[KittenKoder]

Where's the "logic" in that? Since the chart shows heating didn't end in 1998, then how can posting it again give you MORE ways to make me look wrong???

You are saying deniers can post the same lies over and over but the same lies must be rebutted in new ways each time they are retold. That's some handicap you deniers feel you must have!!! LOL

No, by repeatedly posting the same chart while others have demonstrated multiple sources, multiple findings, and posed other larger questions is either a sign of avoiding those and just focusing on the one thing you can prove, or that your evidence isn't based on enough facts to give a bigger picture than that.

So here, one such question I asked, where's the data for the last billion years?

In the rocks, where it has always been. However, that is relevant only in that the past climate catastrophes are recorded there. You go back that far, not only do you have a differant continetal configuration, you have a differant atmosphere.

So you are proving my point about ignoring all but the science and data that makes this look like it's human involvement. They are relevant to the entire process, they show that 1) the earth still survives, and 2) drastic change happens naturally and is unstoppable. Expanding on that reasoning it shows we should not stop it unless you hate the natural world and deny evolution.

 

[Old Rocks]

how is a sample of roughly 100 years significant when discussing a 6 billion year old entity?

Because this is when the industrial revolution occurred and it is impacting us now, and possibly in the future.

Ice core samples tell us a lot about the climate, much longer than 100 years, but it isn't conclusive, just another factor in the many to look at.

here's a thought; maybe dinosaur flatulence killed them off and it wasn't a comet

One of those dinosaur guys pointed out that at the layer of iridium, there are no dinosaur fossils. He said that if the big rock was what killed the dinos, this layer should be thick with fossils and yet there are none.

He concluded that they must all have been dead prior to the impact.

Would you care to post a link to the paleontologist that says that?

 

[Old Rocks]

And scientists admitting earth's temperatures have remained stagnant this decade, with a current cooling trend that could very well extend out to a 30-year cooling trend. Of course they also warn that after these 30 years, global warming could be back more than ever. (strike up the doom n gloom music here)

Of particular note are these scientists admitting they really have no clue why the earth has cooled in recent years. Folks, they have never really had a clue - man-made global warming is merely another religion. Al Gore is its savior - Hansen its John-the-Baptist - and the IPCC its version of the Medieval Catholic Church.

Global Warming: On Hold?: Discovery News

Hell even an infidel like myself knows the reasons. We are at a solar minimum. An extended one. So far in 2009 alone there had been 90 days without sunspots. Corresponding with that is the Pacific Decadal Ocillation. That sucker has shifted and is expected to provide us poor souls with 30 years of cooling.

It won't matter a bit. Like the Global War on Terror has been replaced by the Overseas Contingency Operations, Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) has been replaced by Climate Change (ACC) .

Here's a link to a chart showing Sunspot Activity correlated with global climate change going back 7,500 years with the data collected from ice cores, tree rings, and historical records.
7,500 YEAR CHART
CHART LEGEND

OK, that was a link to the chart. What is the source of the chart?

 

[KittenKoder]

Where's the "logic" in that? Since the chart shows heating didn't end in 1998, then how can posting it again give you MORE ways to make me look wrong???

You are saying deniers can post the same lies over and over but the same lies must be rebutted in new ways each time they are retold. That's some handicap you deniers feel you must have!!! LOL

No, by repeatedly posting the same chart while others have demonstrated multiple sources, multiple findings, and posed other larger questions is either a sign of avoiding those and just focusing on the one thing you can prove, or that your evidence isn't based on enough facts to give a bigger picture than that.

So here, one such question I asked, where's the data for the last billion years?

OK, here's your diversionary chart.
Now it's your turn, how does this chart show whether or not we have had warming since 1998?

... and now you confuse the person who asked the question with me, who pointed out why you were never getting any further in the discussion.

Now, if we look at the chart (assuming it's accurate) it appears that the temperatures are still finding a "balance" which each era showing slightly fewer extremes than those previous to them. Now, thinking laterally here is a possibility, that the actual stable temperature is higher than some scientists theorized and that their conclusions are wrong. However, what makes the chart suspect is that the the other highest temps in recent ancient history were at a time that humanity offered almost no pollution as well the many naturally occurring points which rival ours. However this is all based on the assumption that the data is correct, to which we have no hard proof of yet. The problem with looking back is that we start dealing with probabilities more than hard fact.