Global Warming: the Relentless Trend

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You get SHOCKED with common sense questions

Not shocked....not at all... it's a childish (or, in this case, ignorant or dishonest) question. Any trained chimp with google can go find out why that one degree is significant, and why comparisons of this climatic change to a daily swing of temperature are absurd and belie abject ignorance of this topic. And it surprises me that you, supposedly well-versed in this topic, and obviously putting much thought into it, would say something so goddamn fundamentally stupid about this topic. I am just not going to play along, sorry.

So how come this is an easy challenge for trained chimps and not for you???

And WHY IS "a comparison of climatic change (of one 1 degree) to a daily swing in temperature" absurd. Go find a chimp to train you and get back to me..

NASA: ‘Unusually cold winter’ causes Lake Erie to ice over – nearly 60% of all lakes covered with ice

I wonder if a -5 deg C drop is worse?

If you cannot understand the difference between "local weather" and "global climate", you should not open your mouth on this topoc. Ever.

 

[impuretrash]

Black people think they'll inherit the earth after global warming kills off us melanin-deficient white folks. LOL

 

[SSDD]

You get SHOCKED with common sense questions

Not shocked....not at all... it's a childish (or, in this case, ignorant or dishonest) question. Any trained chimp with google can go find out why that one degree is significant, and why comparisons of this climatic change to a daily swing of temperature are absurd and belie abject ignorance of this topic. And it surprises me that you, supposedly well-versed in this topic, and obviously putting much thought into it, would say something so goddamn fundamentally stupid about this topic. I am just not going to play along, sorry.

So how come this is an easy challenge for trained chimps and not for you???

And WHY IS "a comparison of climatic change (of one 1 degree) to a daily swing in temperature" absurd. Go find a chimp to train you and get back to me..

NASA: ‘Unusually cold winter’ causes Lake Erie to ice over – nearly 60% of all lakes covered with ice

I wonder if a -5 deg C drop is worse?

If you cannot understand the difference between "local weather" and "global climate", you should not open your mouth on this topoc. Ever.

If one looks at the global climate in terms of regional records, as opposed to the heavily manipulated, homogenized, and bastardized global record, one does not find a global climate anything like that suggested by the so called global record.

For example, the surface temperature of the Irminger Sea (North Atlantic) has been steadily decreasing since the late 1800's

The surface temperature of Greenland hasn't warmed since the 1880's

Antarctica has seen no real warming trend in almost 200 years...

The Himalayas have seen no warming in 300 years:

And on and on it goes...

New Zealand...no warming since the 1870's

Western Pacific...no warming since the 1870's

Pakistan...no warming since the 1870's

Turkey...no warming since the 1870's

Portugal....no warming since the 1870's

Siberia....no warming since the 1870's

Northeast China...no warming since the 1870's

Southwest China...no warming since the 1870's

Southern South America....no warming since the 1870's

Canada (British Columbia)....no warming since the 1870's

Northern Hemisphere...no warming since the 1950's

Arctic Region...no warming since the 1950's

Rural United States...no warming since the 1940's

Mediterranean..no warming since the 1950's

Brazil....no warming since th e1960's

Andes Mountains....no warming since the 1950's

So tell me fort fun...where exactly is the "global" warming? Answer...nowhere. If one looks at regional records, as opposed to the heavily homogenized, infilled, and altered global record, one sees that few regions in the world have experienced any warming whatsoever for quite some time...some regions for over 300 years.

Now, give me a reason why I should believe a record that is heavily altered and infilled rather than the actual records kept by scientists in the region in question. While you are at it, you might want to read this paper recently published regarding the scientific value of the global record these days....


https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

 

[flacaltenn]

You get SHOCKED with common sense questions

Not shocked....not at all... it's a childish (or, in this case, ignorant or dishonest) question. Any trained chimp with google can go find out why that one degree is significant, and why comparisons of this climatic change to a daily swing of temperature are absurd and belie abject ignorance of this topic. And it surprises me that you, supposedly well-versed in this topic, and obviously putting much thought into it, would say something so goddamn fundamentally stupid about this topic. I am just not going to play along, sorry.

So how come this is an easy challenge for trained chimps and not for you???

And WHY IS "a comparison of climatic change (of one 1 degree) to a daily swing in temperature" absurd. Go find a chimp to train you and get back to me..

NASA: ‘Unusually cold winter’ causes Lake Erie to ice over – nearly 60% of all lakes covered with ice

I wonder if a -5 deg C drop is worse?

If you cannot understand the difference between "local weather" and "global climate", you should not open your mouth on this topoc. Ever.

If one looks at the global climate in terms of regional records, as opposed to the heavily manipulated, homogenized, and bastardized global record, one does not find a global climate anything like that suggested by the so called global record.

For example, the surface temperature of the Irminger Sea (North Atlantic) has been steadily decreasing since the late 1800's

The surface temperature of Greenland hasn't warmed since the 1880's

Antarctica has seen no real warming trend in almost 200 years...

The Himalayas have seen no warming in 300 years:

And on and on it goes...

New Zealand...no warming since the 1870's

Western Pacific...no warming since the 1870's

Pakistan...no warming since the 1870's

Turkey...no warming since the 1870's

Portugal....no warming since the 1870's

Siberia....no warming since the 1870's

Northeast China...no warming since the 1870's

Southwest China...no warming since the 1870's

Southern South America....no warming since the 1870's

Canada (British Columbia)....no warming since the 1870's

Northern Hemisphere...no warming since the 1950's

Arctic Region...no warming since the 1950's

Rural United States...no warming since the 1940's

Mediterranean..no warming since the 1950's

Brazil....no warming since th e1960's

Andes Mountains....no warming since the 1950's

So tell me fort fun...where exactly is the "global" warming? Answer...nowhere. If one looks at regional records, as opposed to the heavily homogenized, infilled, and altered global record, one sees that few regions in the world have experienced any warming whatsoever for quite some time...some regions for over 300 years.

Now, give me a reason why I should believe a record that is heavily altered and infilled rather than the actual records kept by scientists in the region in question. While you are at it, you might want to read this paper recently published regarding the scientific value of the global record these days....


https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

It's nearly ALL in the Arctic.. Where the surface measurement is sparse and the LOCAL "climate sensitivity" is high. It's has a much higher impact in areas that by definition are EXTREMELY VOID of heat.

AND if you favor the highly cooked land/sea sensor data over satellites, It's now in the oceans where NOAA favors ship captains logs over an extensive array of high tech stationary buoys.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You get SHOCKED with common sense questions

Not shocked....not at all... it's a childish (or, in this case, ignorant or dishonest) question. Any trained chimp with google can go find out why that one degree is significant, and why comparisons of this climatic change to a daily swing of temperature are absurd and belie abject ignorance of this topic. And it surprises me that you, supposedly well-versed in this topic, and obviously putting much thought into it, would say something so goddamn fundamentally stupid about this topic. I am just not going to play along, sorry.

So how come this is an easy challenge for trained chimps and not for you???

And WHY IS "a comparison of climatic change (of one 1 degree) to a daily swing in temperature" absurd. Go find a chimp to train you and get back to me..

NASA: ‘Unusually cold winter’ causes Lake Erie to ice over – nearly 60% of all lakes covered with ice

I wonder if a -5 deg C drop is worse?

If you cannot understand the difference between "local weather" and "global climate", you should not open your mouth on this topoc. Ever.

Your not worth wasting my time on... You don't know the difference between localized weather and long term climate..

 

[SSDD]

Whats the matter fort fun? Cat got your tongue?

 

[Old Rocks]

Not shocked....not at all... it's a childish (or, in this case, ignorant or dishonest) question. Any trained chimp with google can go find out why that one degree is significant, and why comparisons of this climatic change to a daily swing of temperature are absurd and belie abject ignorance of this topic. And it surprises me that you, supposedly well-versed in this topic, and obviously putting much thought into it, would say something so goddamn fundamentally stupid about this topic. I am just not going to play along, sorry.

So how come this is an easy challenge for trained chimps and not for you???

And WHY IS "a comparison of climatic change (of one 1 degree) to a daily swing in temperature" absurd. Go find a chimp to train you and get back to me..

NASA: ‘Unusually cold winter’ causes Lake Erie to ice over – nearly 60% of all lakes covered with ice

I wonder if a -5 deg C drop is worse?

If you cannot understand the difference between "local weather" and "global climate", you should not open your mouth on this topoc. Ever.

If one looks at the global climate in terms of regional records, as opposed to the heavily manipulated, homogenized, and bastardized global record, one does not find a global climate anything like that suggested by the so called global record.

For example, the surface temperature of the Irminger Sea (North Atlantic) has been steadily decreasing since the late 1800's

The surface temperature of Greenland hasn't warmed since the 1880's

Antarctica has seen no real warming trend in almost 200 years...

The Himalayas have seen no warming in 300 years:

And on and on it goes...

New Zealand...no warming since the 1870's

Western Pacific...no warming since the 1870's

Pakistan...no warming since the 1870's

Turkey...no warming since the 1870's

Portugal....no warming since the 1870's

Siberia....no warming since the 1870's

Northeast China...no warming since the 1870's

Southwest China...no warming since the 1870's

Southern South America....no warming since the 1870's

Canada (British Columbia)....no warming since the 1870's

Northern Hemisphere...no warming since the 1950's

Arctic Region...no warming since the 1950's

Rural United States...no warming since the 1940's

Mediterranean..no warming since the 1950's

Brazil....no warming since th e1960's

Andes Mountains....no warming since the 1950's

So tell me fort fun...where exactly is the "global" warming? Answer...nowhere. If one looks at regional records, as opposed to the heavily homogenized, infilled, and altered global record, one sees that few regions in the world have experienced any warming whatsoever for quite some time...some regions for over 300 years.

Now, give me a reason why I should believe a record that is heavily altered and infilled rather than the actual records kept by scientists in the region in question. While you are at it, you might want to read this paper recently published regarding the scientific value of the global record these days....


https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

It's nearly ALL in the Arctic.. Where the surface measurement is sparse and the LOCAL "climate sensitivity" is high. It's has a much higher impact in areas that by definition are EXTREMELY VOID of heat.

AND if you favor the highly cooked land/sea sensor data over satellites, It's now in the oceans where NOAA favors ship captains logs over an extensive array of high tech stationary buoys.

Real fucking dumb. Then what the hell is melting the alpine glaciers all over the world? What charlatans you people are. Yes, the Arctic and Antarctic temperatures are rising far faster than in other parts of the world, but the almost all the rest of the world has seen an increase in temperature. Today, the increase in the Arctic is particularly intense.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's nearly ALL in the Arctic.. Where the surface measurement is sparse and the LOCAL "climate sensitivity" is high. It's has a much higher impact in areas that by definition are EXTREMELY VOID of heat.

AND if you favor the highly cooked land/sea sensor data over satellites, It's now in the oceans where NOAA favors ship captains logs over an extensive array of high tech stationary buoys.

Real fucking dumb. Then what the hell is melting the alpine glaciers all over the world? What charlatans you people are. Yes, the Arctic and Antarctic temperatures are rising far faster than in other parts of the world, but the almost all the rest of the world has seen an increase in temperature. Today, the increase in the Arctic is particularly intense.

Too bad. I beat you to all that. You basically REPEATED what I just said. I think you just can't pass up an opportunity to AGREE with me.. Read the 1st line of my reply and then what YOU wrote.

And I see you're STILL using the phony "Climate Re-analyzer" instead of actual weather reports.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If one looks at the global climate in terms of regional records, as opposed to the heavily manipulated, homogenized, and bastardized global record

In other words, if one looks at global climate the wrong way instead of the right way, then that one gets totally different results than does the global scientific community.

who woulda thunk it?!?!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's nearly ALL in the Arctic

Complete, utter bullshit. While it has happened a bit faster there than the rest of the planet's surface, the area north of the Arctic circle still only represents 4% of the planet's entire surface area. If the warming rate of the arctic were DOUBLE the average of the rest of the surface, then it would still only account for <8% of the warming. And it is not warming twice as quickly as the rest of the surface. Furthermore, most of the excess heat is stored in the ocean. So one cannot even say the ENTIRE surface (!) is responsible for most of the warming of the climate, much less "all"

In short, you are completely full of shit and just said something utterly and abjectly ignorant about his topic. Again. How is this possible? How can you spend so much energy on this topic, and yet not understand even the most fundamental facts about it?

Embarrassing.

 

[SSDD]

If one looks at the global climate in terms of regional records, as opposed to the heavily manipulated, homogenized, and bastardized global record

In other words, if one looks at global climate the wrong way instead of the right way, then that one gets totally different results than does the global scientific community.

who woulda thunk it?!?!

So the heavily altered, homogenized, infilled way is the right way in your twisted mind? Why do you think the global record is so far off from the regional records? You think only the government knows how to read a thermometer and write down the temperature?

And by the way you idiot...the scientific community of the various regions are responsible for the regional records...

 

[SSDD]

It's nearly ALL in the Arctic

Complete, utter bullshit. While it has happened a bit faster there than the rest of the planet's surface, the area north of the Arctic circle still only represents 4% of the planet's entire surface area. If the warming rate of the arctic were DOUBLE the average of the rest of the surface, then it would still only account for <8% of the warming. And it is not warming twice as quickly as the rest of the surface. Furthermore, most of the excess heat is stored in the ocean. So one cannot even say the ENTIRE surface (!) is responsible for most of the warming of the climate, much less "all"

In short, you are completely full of shit and just said something utterly and abjectly ignorant about his topic. Again. How is this possible? How can you spend so much energy on this topic, and yet not understand even the most fundamental facts about it?

Embarrassing.

Not happening according to the regional records...the scientific communities of the various regions have been keeping records for quite some time and very few regions have shown any warming at all...explain that.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's nearly ALL in the Arctic

Complete, utter bullshit. While it has happened a bit faster there than the rest of the planet's surface, the area north of the Arctic circle still only represents 4% of the planet's entire surface area. If the warming rate of the arctic were DOUBLE the average of the rest of the surface, then it would still only account for <8% of the warming. And it is not warming twice as quickly as the rest of the surface. Furthermore, most of the excess heat is stored in the ocean. So one cannot even say the ENTIRE surface (!) is responsible for most of the warming of the climate, much less "all"

In short, you are completely full of shit and just said something utterly and abjectly ignorant about his topic. Again. How is this possible? How can you spend so much energy on this topic, and yet not understand even the most fundamental facts about it?

Embarrassing.

Your envelope calculations suck. We're not talking about representing the entire mean surface temperature of the planet. Only about a 1 deg anomaly in that mean. So your assumptions don't rule out that 4% of the Earth's surface CAN CAUSE a majority of the 1deg anomaly. In fact, EVERYTHING in the literature says exactly that.

If the warming rate is TWICE AS FAST in the Arctic -- then the CUMULATIVE ENERGY MULTIPLIES year after year. It's not exactly the anomaly year to year that matters. It's the CUMULATIVE EFFECT on TOTAL energy that you want to calculate.

 

[Sunsettommy]

You will be long dead for it to be proven either way.

It's already more than proven.

What was more than proven?

 

[Sunsettommy]

The subject was your claim of "consensus".

If 75/77 isn't consensus, I don't know what is.

Sorry Toddster, no idea what you are babbling about.

I'll add that to the already huge list of things you have no idea about.

That's deep, Toddster.

Yes, so was the proof of 97% consensus, using only 77 scientists.

Red herring. There have been many studies using different methods, and all arrive at the fact that there is an overwhelming consensus.

But carry on....it will keep you busy and out of the way....

I find it amusing that YOU are making thumper statement out of ignorance.

Care to show what the IPCC per decade warming rate is?

Consensus is a fallacy, useful in politics worthless in science research which lives on reproducible research.

 

[Sunsettommy]

What accepted theorys?

The accepted theory of the greenhouse effect of adding previously fixed carbon to our atmosphere. Ecological theory, regarding ocean acidification which occurs from adding previously fixed carbon to our carbon cycle.. For starters. There's your big ones. Have at them!

You are coming in like a kid here because you have no clue about you say. You are deep into name calling, Consensus fallacies, show abject ignorance of the topic and more.

You bring up the bogus concern over "acidification" in ocean waters that is HIGHLY buffered. Rainfall is around 5.5 ph, rivers emptying into oceans are also quite acidic, in fact ALL natural water are acidic, yet the Oceans manage to still be strongly alkaline after hundreds of million years of all that acidic inflow.

Currently the Ocean water already contain 99% of all free CO2 of the system in it, the atmosphere has just a tiny dribble of CO2 in it.

 

[Sunsettommy]

What accepted theorys?

The accepted theory of the greenhouse effect of adding previously fixed carbon to our atmosphere. Ecological theory, regarding ocean acidification which occurs from adding previously fixed carbon to our carbon cycle.. For starters. There's your big ones. Have at them!

There was no fixed Carbon, who told you that?????

What? Just what the fuck do you think that coal, oil, and natural gas are?

Again fixed carbon?

Are you playing dumb, or are you really that stupid? Yes, fixed carbon. When it is in the ground, it is doing nothing at all to our atmosphere or climate. It only affects us when we take it out and burn it. Then we get CO2 and CH4 added to the atmosphere, both potent GHGS.

Neither one is a "potent" GHG as they are trace gases and have tiny IR absorption windows. The vast majority of terrestrial energy flow from earth to space are NEVER absorbed by CO2 and CH4 at all.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sorry Toddster, no idea what you are babbling about.

I'll add that to the already huge list of things you have no idea about.

That's deep, Toddster.

Yes, so was the proof of 97% consensus, using only 77 scientists.

Red herring. There have been many studies using different methods, and all arrive at the fact that there is an overwhelming consensus.

But carry on....it will keep you busy and out of the way....

I find it amusing that YOU are making thumper statement out of ignorance.

Care to show what the IPCC per decade warming rate is?

Consensus is a fallacy, useful in politics worthless in science research which lives on reproducible research.

Listen up crybaby:

Just make your point. Then, please point us to your published scientific articles.

Thank you.

 

[westwall]

Let us know where "consensus" is described in the Scientific Method. Thanks...

Inappropriate response. I wasnt presenting the consensus as evidence of anything. I was describing the "kool aid" I am supposedly drinking, which is the scientifoc consensus and the mountains of mutually supportive evidence which produced that consensus. Exactly as I stated. Kinda fell on your face, there.

Sure you are. It's the oldest Appeal to Authority in the global warming fraudsters playbook. Now, look up the logical fallacy of the Appeal to Authority argument.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Let us know where "consensus" is described in the Scientific Method. Thanks...

Inappropriate response. I wasnt presenting the consensus as evidence of anything. I was describing the "kool aid" I am supposedly drinking, which is the scientifoc consensus and the mountains of mutually supportive evidence which produced that consensus. Exactly as I stated. Kinda fell on your face, there.

Sure you are. It's the oldest Appeal to Authority in the global warming fraudsters playbook. Now, look up the logical fallacy of the Appeal to Authority argument.

Yeah while he forgot to tell us about HIS published scientific articles......