Brrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!

[Tech_Esq]

heehee Hansen's own admission of his arbitrary SAT measurements.

Data @ NASA GISS: GISTEMP -- Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature (SAT)

When asked what is meant by Surface Air Temperature (SAT) Dr Hansen explains:

“I doubt that there is a general agreement how to answer this question. Even at the same location, the temperature near the ground may be very different from the temperature 5 ft above the ground and different again from 10ft or 50ft above the ground. Particularly in the presence of vegetation (say in a rain forest) the temperature above the vegetation may be very different from the temperature below the top of the vegetation. A reasonable suggestion might be to use the average temperature of the first 50ft of air either above ground or on top of the vegetation. To measure SAT we have to agree on what it is and, as far as I know, no such standard has been adopted. I cannot imagine that a weather station would build a 50ft stack of thermometers to be able to find the true SAT at its location.”

The moral of the story...You can't trust GISS data as long as Hansen is in charge.

The bottom line is that Hansen is admitting that they don't even have REAL reliable data today. They are making all this shit up. They had even less good data in years past. So on the basis of absolutely horrid data we collected from 1850 to 1950 and terrible data that we've collected from 1950 to the present all replete with inconsistency, incompleteness and inexplicable variation, we are now willing to spend trillions upon trillions and drive entire nations into poverty to stop that which nobody can variably, to a scientific certainty, prove exists. And let's not forget all the weight we give to "ice cores" which are all too like phrenology or other scrying methods.

This wouldn't make logical sense to a 5 year old. You people that buy into this clap-trap bunch of nonsense, really need to pull your head out of your fourth point of contact!

 

[k2skier]

heehee Hansen's own admission of his arbitrary SAT measurements.

Data @ NASA GISS: GISTEMP -- Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature (SAT)

When asked what is meant by Surface Air Temperature (SAT) Dr Hansen explains:

“I doubt that there is a general agreement how to answer this question. Even at the same location, the temperature near the ground may be very different from the temperature 5 ft above the ground and different again from 10ft or 50ft above the ground. Particularly in the presence of vegetation (say in a rain forest) the temperature above the vegetation may be very different from the temperature below the top of the vegetation. A reasonable suggestion might be to use the average temperature of the first 50ft of air either above ground or on top of the vegetation. To measure SAT we have to agree on what it is and, as far as I know, no such standard has been adopted. I cannot imagine that a weather station would build a 50ft stack of thermometers to be able to find the true SAT at its location.”

The moral of the story...You can't trust GISS data as long as Hansen is in charge.

The bottom line is that Hansen is admitting that they don't even have REAL reliable data today. They are making all this shit up. They had even less good data in years past. So on the basis of absolutely horrid data we collected from 1850 to 1950 and terrible data that we've collected from 1950 to the present all replete with inconsistency, incompleteness and inexplicable variation, we are now willing to spend trillions upon trillions and drive entire nations into poverty to stop that which nobody can variably, to a scientific certainty, prove exists. And let's not forget all the weight we give to "ice cores" which are all too like phrenology or other scrying methods.

This wouldn't make logical sense to a 5 year old. You people that buy into this clap-trap bunch of nonsense, really need to pull your head out of your fourth point of contact!

it's all about common sense and long term sustainability, and we can't continue to use a non-renewable resource at these levels without some adverse side effects, and the sooner we wean ourselves off of crude oil the less painful it will be, period.

 

[KittenKoder]

Aaah ... but what about the adverse side effects of doing too much to "help"?

 

[k2skier]

Aaah ... but what about the adverse side effects of doing too much to "help"?

What the expense? Every year we put off the inevitable it only gets more expensive. There are better ways to mover our (Americans) fat lazy asses around than crude oil, which we need more for medical and food services than transportation. Just a federal mandated minimum 35 mpg for all cars would help a lot.

 

[Old Rocks]

The author of an influential British government report arguing the world needed to spend just 1% of its wealth tackling climate change has warned that the cost of averting disaster has now doubled.

Lord Stern of Brentford made headlines in 2006 with a report that said countries needed to spend 1% of their GDP to stop greenhouse gases rising to dangerous levels. Failure to do this would lead to damage costing much more, the report warned - at least 5% and perhaps more than 20% of global GDP.

But speaking yesterday in London, Stern said evidence that climate change was happening faster than had been previously thought meant that emissions needed to be reduced even more sharply.

Cost of tackling global climate change has doubled, warns Stern | Environment | The Guardian

 

[krotchdog]

The author of an influential British government report arguing the world needed to spend just 1% of its wealth tackling climate change has warned that the cost of averting disaster has now doubled.

Lord Stern of Brentford made headlines in 2006 with a report that said countries needed to spend 1% of their GDP to stop greenhouse gases rising to dangerous levels. Failure to do this would lead to damage costing much more, the report warned - at least 5% and perhaps more than 20% of global GDP.

But speaking yesterday in London, Stern said evidence that climate change was happening faster than had been previously thought meant that emissions needed to be reduced even more sharply.

Cost of tackling global climate change has doubled, warns Stern | Environment | The Guardian

look boys and girls, more google results, remember google is not a source of information, its all paid advertisement, you see when you google and click on a link google charges the advertiser.

You can post all day long, cut/paste, that just shows you blindly follow an idealogy and pick which story to paste based on idealogy, my proof of this will follow with my favorite theme.

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

old rock knowingly posted false information in environment under climate change

how can I address old rock's 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 rock post the false report but old rock had a rebutal ready in case he got found out

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

 

[k2skier]

The author of an influential British government report arguing the world needed to spend just 1% of its wealth tackling climate change has warned that the cost of averting disaster has now doubled.

Lord Stern of Brentford made headlines in 2006 with a report that said countries needed to spend 1% of their GDP to stop greenhouse gases rising to dangerous levels. Failure to do this would lead to damage costing much more, the report warned - at least 5% and perhaps more than 20% of global GDP.

But speaking yesterday in London, Stern said evidence that climate change was happening faster than had been previously thought meant that emissions needed to be reduced even more sharply.

Cost of tackling global climate change has doubled, warns Stern | Environment | The Guardian

look boys and girls, more google results, remember google is not a source of information, its all paid advertisement, you see when you google and click on a link google charges the advertiser.

You can post all day long, cut/paste, that just shows you blindly follow an idealogy and pick which story to paste based on idealogy, my proof of this will follow with my favorite theme.

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

old rock knowingly posted false information in environment under climate change

how can I address old rock's 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 rock post the false report but old rock had a rebutal ready in case he got found out

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

Please get a life and quit trolling OR. Most of your posts are ludicrous and intelligible anyway. Every time you include your flaming sentence in EVERY one of your posts is shows how sad a human you are.

 

[Sinatra]

In 2004 researchers indicated the Antarctica was cooling - as predicted by climate models. This was widely supported by the global warmers as having been perfectly in harmony with their much trusted global warming climate models.

More recently the Steig report indicated that in fact, the Antarctic had been warming. The same researcher who indicated as recently as 2004 that data showed expecated global warming/cooling, now states that greenhouse gases were in fact warming the Antarctic to ensure he was not in conflict with fellow global warmer Steig. (Steig's data was almost immiediately found to be incorrectly tabulated - and he has still refused to publish his full data composites -ahem-...)

What we really see here is climate models that are refocused to satisfy whatever pre-determined outcome the modelers wish - in this case, support for showing man-made global warming. And you have the vast majority in the media who will regurgitate whatever revised version handed out by the global warming models is given them - with no accounting for the seeming contradictory nature of these models.

And what we have today with the Obama administration, is the transfer of global warming from a scientific debate, to a governmental one - the resolution of which will come at great cost to all taxpayers - based upon unproven, highly speculative, and often contradictory science.

Strange days indeed.

Most peculiar Momma...

 

[Sinatra]

In 2004 researchers indicated the Antarctica was cooling - as predicted by climate models. This was widely supported by the global warmers as having been perfectly in harmony with their much trusted global warming climate models.

More recently the Steig report indicated that in fact, the Antarctic had been warming. The same researcher who indicated as recently as 2004 that data showed expecated global warming/cooling, now states that greenhouse gases were in fact warming the Antarctic to ensure he was not in conflict with fellow global warmer Steig. (Steig's data was almost immiediately found to be incorrectly tabulated - and he has still refused to publish his full data composites -ahem-...)

What we really see here is climate models that are refocused to satisfy whatever pre-determined outcome the modelers wish - in this case, support for showing man-made global warming. And you have the vast majority in the media who will regurgitate whatever revised version handed out by the global warming models is given them - with no accounting for the seeming contradictory nature of these models.

And what we have today with the Obama administration, is the transfer of global warming from a scientific debate, to a governmental one - the resolution of which will come at great cost to all taxpayers - based upon unproven, highly speculative, and often contradictory science.

Strange days indeed.

Most peculiar Momma...

,,,

 

[code1211]

The author of an influential British government report arguing the world needed to spend just 1% of its wealth tackling climate change has warned that the cost of averting disaster has now doubled.

Lord Stern of Brentford made headlines in 2006 with a report that said countries needed to spend 1% of their GDP to stop greenhouse gases rising to dangerous levels. Failure to do this would lead to damage costing much more, the report warned - at least 5% and perhaps more than 20% of global GDP.

But speaking yesterday in London, Stern said evidence that climate change was happening faster than had been previously thought meant that emissions needed to be reduced even more sharply.

Cost of tackling global climate change has doubled, warns Stern | Environment | The Guardian

The cost of of tackling global climate cvhage has doubled while the actual climate change has flattened out. Around whre i live, we've been about ten degrees below normal for the month of April.

If we don't bother to tackle climate change, do we save all of that money? From where I sit, with furnace on and windows closed ten degrees below normal temps, it looks a little like the tackle was made.

 

[Old Rocks]

In 2004 researchers indicated the Antarctica was cooling - as predicted by climate models. This was widely supported by the global warmers as having been perfectly in harmony with their much trusted global warming climate models.

More recently the Steig report indicated that in fact, the Antarctic had been warming. The same researcher who indicated as recently as 2004 that data showed expecated global warming/cooling, now states that greenhouse gases were in fact warming the Antarctic to ensure he was not in conflict with fellow global warmer Steig. (Steig's data was almost immiediately found to be incorrectly tabulated - and he has still refused to publish his full data composites -ahem-...)

What we really see here is climate models that are refocused to satisfy whatever pre-determined outcome the modelers wish - in this case, support for showing man-made global warming. And you have the vast majority in the media who will regurgitate whatever revised version handed out by the global warming models is given them - with no accounting for the seeming contradictory nature of these models.

And what we have today with the Obama administration, is the transfer of global warming from a scientific debate, to a governmental one - the resolution of which will come at great cost to all taxpayers - based upon unproven, highly speculative, and often contradictory science.

Strange days indeed.

Most peculiar Momma...

Very odd. Most of the researchers I read were very surprised by the news that most of the Antarctic was warming. This was not expected, and should not be happening this soon.

 

[Sinatra]

The author of an influential British government report arguing the world needed to spend just 1% of its wealth tackling climate change has warned that the cost of averting disaster has now doubled.

Lord Stern of Brentford made headlines in 2006 with a report that said countries needed to spend 1% of their GDP to stop greenhouse gases rising to dangerous levels. Failure to do this would lead to damage costing much more, the report warned - at least 5% and perhaps more than 20% of global GDP.

But speaking yesterday in London, Stern said evidence that climate change was happening faster than had been previously thought meant that emissions needed to be reduced even more sharply.

Cost of tackling global climate change has doubled, warns Stern | Environment | The Guardian

The cost of of tackling global climate cvhage has doubled while the actual climate change has flattened out. Around whre i live, we've been about ten degrees below normal for the month of April.

If we don't bother to tackle climate change, do we save all of that money? From where I sit, with furnace on and windows closed ten degrees below normal temps, it looks a little like the tackle was made.

Your point is both succinct - and well made.

A complete lack of common sense dominates the global warming industrial machine.

It has never been about the environment - it has been about control. Global warming has far more in common with the Catholic Church of the Dark Ages than actual science. They have become the reborn flat-earthers...

 

[Old Rocks]

The author of an influential British government report arguing the world needed to spend just 1% of its wealth tackling climate change has warned that the cost of averting disaster has now doubled.

Lord Stern of Brentford made headlines in 2006 with a report that said countries needed to spend 1% of their GDP to stop greenhouse gases rising to dangerous levels. Failure to do this would lead to damage costing much more, the report warned - at least 5% and perhaps more than 20% of global GDP.

But speaking yesterday in London, Stern said evidence that climate change was happening faster than had been previously thought meant that emissions needed to be reduced even more sharply.

Cost of tackling global climate change has doubled, warns Stern | Environment | The Guardian

The cost of of tackling global climate cvhage has doubled while the actual climate change has flattened out. Around whre i live, we've been about ten degrees below normal for the month of April.

If we don't bother to tackle climate change, do we save all of that money? From where I sit, with furnace on and windows closed ten degrees below normal temps, it looks a little like the tackle was made.

Of course, where you sit is hardly the whole world. You might ask the people in Australia what their opinion is on global warming.

 

[code1211]

OK, here's another possibility. If we focus on the last 450,000 years a pattern emerges that suggests that the Little Ice Age should have been the beginning of the overdue Next Ice Age but something upset this natural cycle and we are warming again, whatever the reason.

I don't follow how you get that the cycle is interrupted at all. It looks like it all still fits.

The other interglacial warm periods were under 10,000 years so the Little Ice Age seems to fit that cycle as the next ice age. But we are warming again for 100 years which seems not to fit the cycle. The current interglacial warm period is now 12,000 years.
Now I can see arguing about the cause of the warming, but deniers will claim we ARE cooling rather than warming.

Why misrepresent the view of a hypothetical opponent instead of just presenting your own point?

 

[code1211]

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?

<snip>


An astronomer named Walter Maunder discovered, through his research that
there had been long periods of reduced sunspot activity in the past. After
completing his work he presented it in a paper titled “A Prolonged Sunspot
Minimum” in 1894. In it he argued unsuccessfully that the sun behaved
strangely between the 17th and 18th centuries.

<snip>

Excellent. Excellent. Excellent. This is exactly how I understand the Maunder Minimum, but I could never have stated it as cogently as you do. Fast forwarding the clock to the late 70's, TSI begins to be measured not by Earth Bound observation but rather by orbiting satelites. The direction of the data changes at that point.

For about 200 years the temperaute and the TSI as measured from the surface move in tandem with TSI leading. At about 1980, when the measuring moves into orbit, the correlation ends. Whenever there is an abrupt change in a correlation of two trends, I always look for a reason.

The obvious change in this is how the data is gathered. Another possibility is that the relationship of the Sun to the Earth has changed or that whatever natural laws govern this kind of thing have changed.

http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/books/g_warming/book4/figure4.gif

 

[code1211]

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.

See! Their flatulence created too much methane and they died from climate change, I knew it, lol.

Hmmm... Is it possible that the dinosaurs evolved fingers to pull?

 

[code1211]

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?

I saw it on one of the science type channels so I have no link. It struck me as interesting, but then again the conditions that promote fossilization are probably more important to making a fossil than the number of dead dinos laying around on a given day.

 

[Old Rocks]

Code;


I saw it on one of the science type channels so I have no link. It struck me as interesting, but then again the conditions that promote fossilization are probably more important to making a fossil than the number of dead dinos laying around on a given day.
..................................................................................................

I would like to see his reasoning. As you pointed out, the conditions are more important than the number of bodies. The conditions, distant from the impact, was intense acidic rain out of a dark sky. After the initial rain of fire. In North America, much of the prime dinosaur territory was washed over by an immense tsunami.
A very good book on the effect of the impact is "T-Rex and the Crater of Doom" by Walter Alveraz. In spite of the hokey title, it is a very good and readable book.

 

[KittenKoder]

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?

I saw it on one of the science type channels so I have no link. It struck me as interesting, but then again the conditions that promote fossilization are probably more important to making a fossil than the number of dead dinos laying around on a given day.

But remember ... if it isn't online it isn't true ...
Many of my sources are offline as well, but they tend to ignore those for some reason, in spite of the fact that 90% (and growing) of what's online is just baseless opinions.

 

[Sinatra]

Well March 2009 was the coldest March globally since 2000 - meaning we have just concluded the coldest March in 10 years. March 2009 was just marginally warmer than March 1980.

While the global warming rhetoric heats up, it appears earth continues to cool down...