Greenland glaciers receding SLOWER then in the 1930s..

[Saigon]

http://forgottenliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/2000-years-of-global-temperatures.jpg


So were the vikings driving too many cars? Their temperatures were warmer than ours.....

It's funny...I think this kind of statement here must have been addressed at least once a week for the past year.

Yes, there were other warming periods - but that does not mean that they were all caused by the same thing, does it?

If you research something like the Minoan Warming Period, you'll find explanations as to what caused it, and how we know what caused it.

 

[Bloodline]

http://forgottenliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/2000-years-of-global-temperatures.jpg


So were the vikings driving too many cars? Their temperatures were warmer than ours.....

It's funny...I think this kind of statement here must have been addressed at least once a week for the past year.

Yes, there were other warming periods - but that does not mean that they were all caused by the same thing, does it?

If you research something like the Minoan Warming Period, you'll find explanations as to what caused it, and how we know what caused it.

These people don't want to "research" anything!

They are on a "loop" of illogical talking points....like a record stuck in a groove.

They don't know WHY they say the things they do. They've been programmed and they're determined to keep saying the SAME things no matter what EVIDENCE they may see to the contrary!

 

[FJO]

Silly ass. In a very short term, we have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere by over 40%, and the CH4 by over 150%. That adds up to far more change than it took to go from continental glaciation to the glaciers present around 1900.

Perhaps were you to actually research what the climatologists and geologists that study this subject are saying, rather than repeating the nonsense of an obese junkie on the radio, you would understand the urgency of the scientists words.

Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - Home

I have NEVER heard ANYONE talk about global warming on the radio dumbass. If you think the posts I've made are not based in scientific fact then you are too stupid to be debating in this thread.

**** you, you foil-hat piece of shit. The reason this doesn't get discussed on radio is because radio appeals to tinfoil-hat fucktards who would be cartoon-ostriches because real ostriches don't put their heads into the sand.

Sure let's listen to Rush, and sort anything out. At every forum like this are loads of skeptics, who won't add up the big picture, how CO2 went all the way to 400 ppm, how it forms carbonic acid in water, how methane is added in, how warming and acidification are accelerating.

You are just the latest asshole, to try to rant up a fight, with your ass in traffic. The skeptics all try to get a thread like this, in any forum I've seen, operate with wingpunk-wingmen, post a load of shit, all dealing with foil-hat theories and junk science. Meanwhile, warming and acidification and species die-offs are accelerating.

Monkeys will wind up as Bush-meat, asshole. If the oceanic food chain goes, the food chain on land is next. Humans can lose population and habitat. And over at the other threads, the wingnuts are spamming with a lot of junk science, about how GHGs actually function, like ozone, but their quote in quote in quote is really only a lot of cheerleading, with their heads up each others' asses, and their tinfoil-hat science is in the shitter.

Who cares who thinks he is liberal or conservative? We re-green, biomass and all, or we risk death, loss of habitat, and extinction. Shove your Rush-show radio up your butt!

You ought to head on over there, to the other threads, Pissmonkey. The wingpunk posses are tired. One of them, Q-bag, admitted he's gay, when I pointed out how the wingpunk posses were all like the queers of the 1970s and 80s, who wanted to keep bath-housing, shooting speed, and tricking, while HIV moved quickly, to full-blown AIDS. Eat shit and die, Pissmonkey. Your monkeylove is queer as a three-dollar-bill.

Your first sentence convinced me not to indulge in a conversation/debate with you.

EVER!!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Another cause of temperature fluctuations

Rossby wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I have NEVER heard ANYONE talk about global warming on the radio dumbass. If you think the posts I've made are not based in scientific fact then you are too stupid to be debating in this thread.

**** you, you foil-hat piece of shit. The reason this doesn't get discussed on radio is because radio appeals to tinfoil-hat fucktards who would be cartoon-ostriches because real ostriches don't put their heads into the sand.

Sure let's listen to Rush, and sort anything out. At every forum like this are loads of skeptics, who won't add up the big picture, how CO2 went all the way to 400 ppm, how it forms carbonic acid in water, how methane is added in, how warming and acidification are accelerating.

You are just the latest asshole, to try to rant up a fight, with your ass in traffic. The skeptics all try to get a thread like this, in any forum I've seen, operate with wingpunk-wingmen, post a load of shit, all dealing with foil-hat theories and junk science. Meanwhile, warming and acidification and species die-offs are accelerating.

Monkeys will wind up as Bush-meat, asshole. If the oceanic food chain goes, the food chain on land is next. Humans can lose population and habitat. And over at the other threads, the wingnuts are spamming with a lot of junk science, about how GHGs actually function, like ozone, but their quote in quote in quote is really only a lot of cheerleading, with their heads up each others' asses, and their tinfoil-hat science is in the shitter.

Who cares who thinks he is liberal or conservative? We re-green, biomass and all, or we risk death, loss of habitat, and extinction. Shove your Rush-show radio up your butt!

You ought to head on over there, to the other threads, Pissmonkey. The wingpunk posses are tired. One of them, Q-bag, admitted he's gay, when I pointed out how the wingpunk posses were all like the queers of the 1970s and 80s, who wanted to keep bath-housing, shooting speed, and tricking, while HIV moved quickly, to full-blown AIDS. Eat shit and die, Pissmonkey. Your monkeylove is queer as a three-dollar-bill.

Your first sentence convinced me not to indulge in a conversation/debate with you.

EVER!!

thats why I instantly put him straight to the ignore list

 

[healthmyths]

AGU Responds to Op-ed

AGU Responds to Op-ed entitled "No Need to Panic about Global Warming," published by The Wall Street Journal, 27 January 2012

03 February 2012

Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts.”

As we look at the ever-increasing attacks on those whose research has established the fact that climate change is real and human activity is most probably the cause, Moynihan’s sentiment still holds true. There are those who would want us to believe that climate change isn’t happening and that human activity isn’t playing a role, but unfortunately wishful thinking won’t make the facts disappear.

Attacking the character and motives of a scientist or organization because they stand behind a conclusion that is politically charged – that the Earth's climate is out of balance and human activities are in all probability responsible for global warming – is counterproductive and short sighted. Likewise, we ignore the scientific evidence for climate change at our peril because it will have an impact on national security, the economy, our food supply, and many other areas that affect our health and well-being.

The research and discovery process that has led scientists to these conclusions is governed by well-established and widely accepted practices designed to ensure the integrity of scientific findings. These same methods have also brought civilization profound achievements like human flight, life-saving vaccines, electric power and the Internet.

As leaders from around the world tackle the challenge of addressing and mitigating the impacts of changing climate, there are three things they can be assured of: (1) Climate change is real, and in all likelihood is being caused by human behavior; (2) There is wide-spread consensus on this point, with 97 percent of the climate science community agreeing; (3) That consensus is rooted in a foundation of scientific knowledge gained through careful, thoughtful, and thorough research, not political or ideological rhetoric.

That would be valid.. IF the entire world's temperature taking was the basis.. BUT
with 12.5% of the World's land mass NOT being included in the temperature stations around the world.. HOW could any scientist conclude the data inclusive?
Consider this.. if you have 5 kids each 5 ft tall and 1 kid 3 ft tall what is the average?
4.6 is the average.. BUT when you drop out the 3 ft kid.. average increases to 5 !

I know this is very simple BUT evidently you and other global warming supporters are
dealing with SKEWED data...


The number of [Siberian ]stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and
then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present Only four stations,
those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large
populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect
more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions
for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.

The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order
to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping: Siberia « Climate Audit

Your post is a PERFECT example of the bullshit the corporate apologists use to muddy the waters on scientific fact!

ONE rejected paper (Lars Kame'l) does NOT constitute any type of "scientific" body of evidence contradicting what the vast majority of the world's scientific community are in agreement on.

Either would a DOZEN!

If you REALLY want to learn how data is gathered for atmospheric studies here....this might be useful.

How to Use Remote Sensing As Evidence for Global Warming | eHow.com

So please tell me how ignoring 12.5% of the world's land mass would NOT have an affect of advancing the perception that global warming as presented by increasing temperatures taken at urban setting recording stations?
In other words, why were only 4 temperature stations readings used from 12.5% of the land mass out of more than 1.6 billion measurements from more than 39,000 temperature stations around the world.
Richard A. Muller: The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism - WSJ.com

Plus there is a "cool bias"which these pictures illustrate.

A temperature reading station which was there FIRST I'm sure.. but the window air condition does what??? Blows warm air out of the room and into what?? the temperature reading station!



How can this "official" temperature sensor POSSIBLY get an accurate reading after being placed so close to the outputs of two very large air conditioner exhausts?



The False Global Warming Temperature Readings. Al Gore's Global Warming Lies - The Religion of Environmentalism

 

[FJO]

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

AGU Position Statement

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

This is where you lose all credibility. The hole in the Ozone has repaired itself.

Nature always repair itself. Two years after the eruption of |Krakatoa, only Al Gore and his acolytes would argue otherwise. Same thing about Mt. St. Helens.

Nature only has problems when self-promoting idiots try to interfere.

 

[bobgnote]

Grampa, I have posted real scientists statements in support of my arguement. Where are your supports for your side? Peer reviewed sources for articles, scientific societies for policy, please.

I don't know where to look for shit on this subject but I will try. Almost all of my knowledge comes from watching 3 channels on tv. NASA, Science, NatGeo/Discovery.

Most of the shit you eat is from your head being up your own asshole, Punkmonkey. You throw murk from your own ass, cuss at the onlookers, and now you are pussing out on me, oh, *******-wow. Dumbshit. Read O.R.'s content.

If you come up with a smart rant, don't forget to thank Old Rocks, for loaning you a brain.

 

[FJO]

Nothing to worry about. The ocean levels will NOT rise.

After all, the new Messiah of mankind told us so, during his presidential campaign in 2008.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Grampa, I have posted real scientists statements in support of my arguement. Where are your supports for your side? Peer reviewed sources for articles, scientific societies for policy, please.

I don't know where to look for shit on this subject but I will try. Almost all of my knowledge comes from watching 3 channels on tv. NASA, Science, NatGeo/Discovery.

Most of the shit you eat is from your head being up your own asshole, Punkmonkey. You throw murk from your own ass, cuss at the onlookers, and now you are pussing out on me, oh, *******-wow. Dumbshit. Read O.R.'s content.

If you come up with a smart rant, don't forget to thank Old Rocks, for loaning you a brain.

Crawl back under your rock loser. This website as well as this thread will do just fine without your pointless hate and off topic posts.

 

[Bloodline]

That would be valid.. IF the entire world's temperature taking was the basis.. BUT
with 12.5% of the World's land mass NOT being included in the temperature stations around the world.. HOW could any scientist conclude the data inclusive?
Consider this.. if you have 5 kids each 5 ft tall and 1 kid 3 ft tall what is the average?
4.6 is the average.. BUT when you drop out the 3 ft kid.. average increases to 5 !

I know this is very simple BUT evidently you and other global warming supporters are
dealing with SKEWED data...


The number of [Siberian ]stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and
then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present Only four stations,
those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large
populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect
more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions
for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.

The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order
to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping: Siberia « Climate Audit

Your post is a PERFECT example of the bullshit the corporate apologists use to muddy the waters on scientific fact!

ONE rejected paper (Lars Kame'l) does NOT constitute any type of "scientific" body of evidence contradicting what the vast majority of the world's scientific community are in agreement on.

Either would a DOZEN!

If you REALLY want to learn how data is gathered for atmospheric studies here....this might be useful.

How to Use Remote Sensing As Evidence for Global Warming | eHow.com

So please tell me how ignoring 12.5% of the world's land mass would NOT have an affect of advancing the perception that global warming as presented by increasing temperatures taken at urban setting recording stations?
In other words, why were only 4 temperature stations readings used from 12.5% of the land mass out of more than 1.6 billion measurements from more than 39,000 temperature stations around the world.
Richard A. Muller: The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism - WSJ.com

Plus there is a "cool bias"which these pictures illustrate.

A temperature reading station which was there FIRST I'm sure.. but the window air condition does what??? Blows warm air out of the room and into what?? the temperature reading station!

View attachment 19316

How can this "official" temperature sensor POSSIBLY get an accurate reading after being placed so close to the outputs of two very large air conditioner exhausts?
View attachment 19318


The False Global Warming Temperature Readings. Al Gore's Global Warming Lies - The Religion of Environmentalism

Well...let's look at your post.

First of all you cite this....

Al Gore's Global Warming Lies - The Religion of Environmentalism

Hmmm.....sounds like it might just be a LITTLE biased to me. How about you?

Kinda like somebody's mind might have been made beforehand on what the conclusions were going to be.

Next, is there any scientific data for the claims on the air conditioners? Sounds like a real grab at straws?

Also you ask this question...

"In other words, why were only 4 temperature stations readings used from 12.5% of the land mass out of more than 1.6 billion measurements from more than 39,000 temperature stations around the world."

Isn't the answer in your question though?

12.5% of the land mass of one continent is actually a very small percentage of the total surface area of the earth isn't it?

You should also consider this. The earth's atmosphere is not defined by borders. It is constantly in motion. The atmosphere over one continent does not remain "fixed" in one spot for very long. Average readings from other places on earth can do an adequate job of measuring trends.

Put down the Kool-Aid OK? You sound like there still may be hope for you!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Your post is a PERFECT example of the bullshit the corporate apologists use to muddy the waters on scientific fact!

ONE rejected paper (Lars Kame'l) does NOT constitute any type of "scientific" body of evidence contradicting what the vast majority of the world's scientific community are in agreement on.

Either would a DOZEN!

If you REALLY want to learn how data is gathered for atmospheric studies here....this might be useful.

How to Use Remote Sensing As Evidence for Global Warming | eHow.com

So please tell me how ignoring 12.5% of the world's land mass would NOT have an affect of advancing the perception that global warming as presented by increasing temperatures taken at urban setting recording stations?
In other words, why were only 4 temperature stations readings used from 12.5% of the land mass out of more than 1.6 billion measurements from more than 39,000 temperature stations around the world.
Richard A. Muller: The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism - WSJ.com

Plus there is a "cool bias"which these pictures illustrate.

A temperature reading station which was there FIRST I'm sure.. but the window air condition does what??? Blows warm air out of the room and into what?? the temperature reading station!

View attachment 19316

How can this "official" temperature sensor POSSIBLY get an accurate reading after being placed so close to the outputs of two very large air conditioner exhausts?
View attachment 19318


The False Global Warming Temperature Readings. Al Gore's Global Warming Lies - The Religion of Environmentalism

Well...let's look at your post.

First of all you cite this....

Al Gore's Global Warming Lies - The Religion of Environmentalism

Hmmm.....sounds like it might just be a LITTLE biased to me. How about you?

Kinda like somebody's mind might have been made beforehand on what the conclusions were going to be.

Next, is there any scientific data for the claims on the air conditioners? Sounds like a real grab at straws?

Also you ask this question...

"In other words, why were only 4 temperature stations readings used from 12.5% of the land mass out of more than 1.6 billion measurements from more than 39,000 temperature stations around the world."

Isn't the answer in your question though?

12.5% of the land mass of one continent is actually a very small percentage of the total surface area of the earth isn't it?

You should also consider this. The earth's atmosphere is not defined by borders. It is constantly in motion. The atmosphere over one continent does not remain "fixed" in one spot for very long. Average readings from other places on earth can do an adequate job of measuring trends.

Put down the Kool-Aid OK? You sound like there still may be hope for you!

I was with you until right here. A weather system off the coast of Africa can be mild yet spawn some of the worst storms on earth by the time it hits the US. Then you have the jet stream which can take a warm body of air and shift it north to mix with a cooler airmass thus resulting in thunderstorms that suck all the heat out resulting in much cooler temperatures.

 

[healthmyths]

Your post is a PERFECT example of the bullshit the corporate apologists use to muddy the waters on scientific fact!

ONE rejected paper (Lars Kame'l) does NOT constitute any type of "scientific" body of evidence contradicting what the vast majority of the world's scientific community are in agreement on.

Either would a DOZEN!

If you REALLY want to learn how data is gathered for atmospheric studies here....this might be useful.

How to Use Remote Sensing As Evidence for Global Warming | eHow.com

So please tell me how ignoring 12.5% of the world's land mass would NOT have an affect of advancing the perception that global warming as presented by increasing temperatures taken at urban setting recording stations?
In other words, why were only 4 temperature stations readings used from 12.5% of the land mass out of more than 1.6 billion measurements from more than 39,000 temperature stations around the world.
Richard A. Muller: The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism - WSJ.com

Plus there is a "cool bias"which these pictures illustrate.

A temperature reading station which was there FIRST I'm sure.. but the window air condition does what??? Blows warm air out of the room and into what?? the temperature reading station!

View attachment 19316

How can this "official" temperature sensor POSSIBLY get an accurate reading after being placed so close to the outputs of two very large air conditioner exhausts?
View attachment 19318


The False Global Warming Temperature Readings. Al Gore's Global Warming Lies - The Religion of Environmentalism

Well...let's look at your post.

First of all you cite this....

Al Gore's Global Warming Lies - The Religion of Environmentalism

Hmmm.....sounds like it might just be a LITTLE biased to me. How about you?

Kinda like somebody's mind might have been made beforehand on what the conclusions were going to be.

Next, is there any scientific data for the claims on the air conditioners? Sounds like a real grab at straws?

Also you ask this question...

"In other words, why were only 4 temperature stations readings used from 12.5% of the land mass out of more than 1.6 billion measurements from more than 39,000 temperature stations around the world."

Isn't the answer in your question though?

12.5% of the land mass of one continent is actually a very small percentage of the total surface area of the earth isn't it?


Put down the Kool-Aid OK? You sound like there still may be hope for you!

It is 12.5% of the WORLD's land mass not one continent.
Of the 57,491,000 square miles: 36,794,240,000 acres of the entire world,

7,186,375 square miles NOT included in these reading!

You should also consider this. The earth's atmosphere is not defined by borders. It is constantly in motion. The atmosphere over one continent does not remain "fixed" in one spot for very long. Average readings from other places on earth can do an adequate job of measuring trends.

The readings are from FIXED sites around the world. Except for 12.5% of the world's land mass is "cold biased".. i.e. discounted because it is too cold! Too cold!

 

[bobgnote]

I don't know where to look for shit on this subject but I will try. Almost all of my knowledge comes from watching 3 channels on tv. NASA, Science, NatGeo/Discovery.

Most of the shit you eat is from your head being up your own asshole, Punkmonkey. You throw murk from your own ass, cuss at the onlookers, and now you are pussing out on me, oh, *******-wow. Dumbshit. Read O.R.'s content.

If you come up with a smart rant, don't forget to thank Old Rocks, for loaning you a brain.

Crawl back under your rock loser. This website as well as this thread will do just fine without your pointless hate and off topic posts.

Aw, Murkmonkey throws monkeycrap, gets roasted, and now, you think you aren't Bush-meat, for some reason. You're my *****, Murkmonkey. Glaciers are receding, warming and acidification are accelerating, and you are a punk, who wants to wear a tinfoil hat and claim that will make any problems go away.

But your logic is circular, since your head is up your monkey-butt, eating your own monkey-crap, and when you pull your stinking, little head, out of your butt, you toss turds, instead of logical discourse, so eat your own shit, and die.

Your posts have moved from stupid and hostile to stupid and wussy, since I started posting. And then there is the matter of your shit, about Rossby waves, which is part shit, part clue. Rossby waves refer to variations in a closed system, which is warming, even if the jet stream stays on the same course (Bushwacks!) or varies.

Warming may affect Rossby waves and therefore the jet stream. Siberia is melting, fires killed a lot of Russians in 2010, and Bangladesh and Pakistan caught an even wetter shitstorm, than usual, from jet stream migration and stagnation. Rossby waves do not affect the overall equation, of warming and acidification. But species die, and humans might be on the endangered list, from warming phenomena, including weird jet-stream variance.

The planet is still heating up, Murkmonkey. The glaciers are receding. When your head is up your own butt, eating your own monkeycrap, I will be happy to keep posting, to inform you about all this, since you dissed Old Rocks, who posted better links and discourse, without flames, than you posted, with flames. You need to read my posts, to get you to the perfectly barbecued state, which you deserve. Eat your own shit and die, punk!

 

[Bloodline]

So please tell me how ignoring 12.5% of the world's land mass would NOT have an affect of advancing the perception that global warming as presented by increasing temperatures taken at urban setting recording stations?
In other words, why were only 4 temperature stations readings used from 12.5% of the land mass out of more than 1.6 billion measurements from more than 39,000 temperature stations around the world.
Richard A. Muller: The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism - WSJ.com

Plus there is a "cool bias"which these pictures illustrate.

A temperature reading station which was there FIRST I'm sure.. but the window air condition does what??? Blows warm air out of the room and into what?? the temperature reading station!

View attachment 19316

How can this "official" temperature sensor POSSIBLY get an accurate reading after being placed so close to the outputs of two very large air conditioner exhausts?
View attachment 19318


The False Global Warming Temperature Readings. Al Gore's Global Warming Lies - The Religion of Environmentalism

Well...let's look at your post.

First of all you cite this....

Al Gore's Global Warming Lies - The Religion of Environmentalism

Hmmm.....sounds like it might just be a LITTLE biased to me. How about you?

Kinda like somebody's mind might have been made beforehand on what the conclusions were going to be.

Next, is there any scientific data for the claims on the air conditioners? Sounds like a real grab at straws?

Also you ask this question...

"In other words, why were only 4 temperature stations readings used from 12.5% of the land mass out of more than 1.6 billion measurements from more than 39,000 temperature stations around the world."

Isn't the answer in your question though?

12.5% of the land mass of one continent is actually a very small percentage of the total surface area of the earth isn't it?

You should also consider this. The earth's atmosphere is not defined by borders. It is constantly in motion. The atmosphere over one continent does not remain "fixed" in one spot for very long. Average readings from other places on earth can do an adequate job of measuring trends.

Put down the Kool-Aid OK? You sound like there still may be hope for you!

I was with you until right here. A weather system off the coast of Africa can be mild yet spawn some of the worst storms on earth by the time it hits the US. Then you have the jet stream which can take a warm body of air and shift it north to mix with a cooler airmass thus resulting in thunderstorms that suck all the heat out resulting in much cooler temperatures.

I THINK we are on the same page and understanding one another?

You just restated my point though I think.

The little micro-episodes in the atmosphere like thunderstorms, hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, ect. are simply the result of the laws of physics. The atmosphere is constantly seeking a balance of energy. Because of differential heating between the poles and the lower latitudes, land masses and water, and the spinning of the earth combined with it's tilt on its axis, an equal amount of solar insolation is never provided to all spots on the globe at exactly the same time. This creates imbalances of energy so the atmosphere is in constant motion trying to mix itself up again all the time seeking equilibrium....which it never finds. Again....that is why we have what we call "weather."

The only relationship that weather has to the long term trend of global warming though is that the more "energy" that is reaching the planet and being reflected back into the atmosphere from the surface the more of these "weather events" will occur.

Global warming skeptics like to point to unusually mild winters or slow hurricane seasons as "proof" that the energy increase in the atmosphere is a "myth." It doesn't work that way though because they aren't looking at longer term trends.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Most of the shit you eat is from your head being up your own asshole, Punkmonkey. You throw murk from your own ass, cuss at the onlookers, and now you are pussing out on me, oh, *******-wow. Dumbshit. Read O.R.'s content.

If you come up with a smart rant, don't forget to thank Old Rocks, for loaning you a brain.

Crawl back under your rock loser. This website as well as this thread will do just fine without your pointless hate and off topic posts.

Aw, Murkmonkey throws monkeycrap, gets roasted, and now, you think you aren't Bush-meat, for some reason. You're my *****, Murkmonkey. Glaciers are receding, warming and acidification are accelerating, and you are a punk, who wants to wear a tinfoil hat and claim that will make any problems go away.

But your logic is circular, since your head is up your monkey-butt, eating your own monkey-crap, and when you pull your stinking, little head, out of your butt, you toss turds, instead of logical discourse, so eat your own shit, and die.

Your posts have moved from stupid and hostile to stupid and wussy, since I started posting. And then there is the matter of your shit, about Rossby waves, which is shit. Rossby waves refer to variations in a closed system, which is warming, even if the jet stream stays on the same course (Bushwacks!) or varies.

The planet is still heating up, Murkmonkey. The glaciers are receding. When your head is up your own butt, eating your own monkeycrap, I will be happy to keep posting, to inform you about all this, since you dissed Old Rocks, who posted better links and discourse, without flames, than you posted, with flames. You need to read my posts, to get you to the perfectly barbecued state, which you deserve. Eat your own shit and die, punk!

Huffing the Rustoleum a bit early aren't you?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Recently unearthed photographs taken by Danish explorers in the 1930s show glaciers in Greenland retreating faster than they are today, according to researchers.
1930s photos show Greenland glaciers retreating faster than today ? The Register

OK AlGore and all you chicken littles.. please explain!!!

Maybe that's why James Lovelock has retracted his alarmist views on global warming. Noted author of the Gaia hypothesis garnered attention in 1979 with his views on the globe as a self-managing system. He now recants his position that the world is headed for catastrophic change in climate. According to an MSNBC report, Lovelock admitted, “all right, I made a mistake.” He admits that global warming is not happening as he expected. What did he expect? Along with other alarmists like Al Gore, Lovelock expected rising temperatures to force folks to live in the Arctic, the only place on earth for tolerable temperatures.

Gaia author James Lovelock recants on global warming - Worldnews.com

Tundra Shrubs Turn into Trees as Arctic Warms
Tundra Shrubs Turn into Trees as Arctic Warms - Yahoo! News

No matter the cause, we need to all agree climate change is happening and plan ahead. Rising sea levels will impact the coastline of America and continuing to argue the cause and not plan for the effect is stupid.

 

[BlindBoo]

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

AGU Position Statement

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

This is where you lose all credibility. The hole in the Ozone has repaired itself.

You lose all credibility.

Antarctic ozone hole still there. Climate Change: News

Levels of most ozone-depleting chemicals in the atmosphere have been gradually declining as the result of the 1987 Montreal Protocol, an international treaty to protect the ozone layer. That international treaty caused the phase-out of ozone-depleting chemicals, which had been used widely in refrigeration, as solvents and in aerosol spray cans.

However, most of those chemicals remain in the atmosphere for decades. Global atmospheric computer models predict that stratospheric ozone could recover by midcentury, but the ozone hole in the Antarctic will likely persist one to two decades longer, according to the latest analysis in the 2010 Quadrennial Ozone Assessment issued by the World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme, with co-authors from NASA and NOAA.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Well...let's look at your post.

First of all you cite this....

Al Gore's Global Warming Lies - The Religion of Environmentalism

Hmmm.....sounds like it might just be a LITTLE biased to me. How about you?

Kinda like somebody's mind might have been made beforehand on what the conclusions were going to be.

Next, is there any scientific data for the claims on the air conditioners? Sounds like a real grab at straws?

Also you ask this question...

"In other words, why were only 4 temperature stations readings used from 12.5% of the land mass out of more than 1.6 billion measurements from more than 39,000 temperature stations around the world."

Isn't the answer in your question though?

12.5% of the land mass of one continent is actually a very small percentage of the total surface area of the earth isn't it?

You should also consider this. The earth's atmosphere is not defined by borders. It is constantly in motion. The atmosphere over one continent does not remain "fixed" in one spot for very long. Average readings from other places on earth can do an adequate job of measuring trends.

Put down the Kool-Aid OK? You sound like there still may be hope for you!

I was with you until right here. A weather system off the coast of Africa can be mild yet spawn some of the worst storms on earth by the time it hits the US. Then you have the jet stream which can take a warm body of air and shift it north to mix with a cooler airmass thus resulting in thunderstorms that suck all the heat out resulting in much cooler temperatures.

I THINK we are on the same page and understanding one another?

You just restated my point though I think.

The little micro-episodes in the atmosphere like thunderstorms, hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, ect. are simply the result of the laws of physics. The atmosphere is constantly seeking a balance of energy. Because of differential heating between the poles and the lower latitudes, land masses and water, and the spinning of the earth combined with it's tilt on its axis, an equal amount of solar insolation is never provided to all spots on the globe at exactly the same time. This creates imbalances of energy so the atmosphere is in constant motion trying to mix itself up again all the time seeking equilibrium....which it never finds. Again....that is why we have what we call "weather."

The only relationship that weather has to the long term trend of global warming though is that the more "energy" that is reaching the planet and being reflected back into the atmosphere from the surface the more of these "weather events" will occur.

Global warming skeptics like to point to unusually mild winters or slow hurricane seasons as "proof" that the energy increase in the atmosphere is a "myth." It doesn't work that way though because they aren't looking at longer term trends.

I think we agree there for the most part.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

AGU Position Statement

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

This is where you lose all credibility. The hole in the Ozone has repaired itself.

You lose all credibility.

Antarctic ozone hole still there. Climate Change: News

Levels of most ozone-depleting chemicals in the atmosphere have been gradually declining as the result of the 1987 Montreal Protocol, an international treaty to protect the ozone layer. That international treaty caused the phase-out of ozone-depleting chemicals, which had been used widely in refrigeration, as solvents and in aerosol spray cans.

However, most of those chemicals remain in the atmosphere for decades. Global atmospheric computer models predict that stratospheric ozone could recover by midcentury, but the ozone hole in the Antarctic will likely persist one to two decades longer, according to the latest analysis in the 2010 Quadrennial Ozone Assessment issued by the World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme, with co-authors from NASA and NOAA.

The depth and area of the Antarctic ozone hole are governed by the temperature of the stratosphere and the amount of sunlight reaching the south polar region. Temperatures that are cold enough can form polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs). PSCs are an important component in the destruction of ozone molecules. PSCs can be formed when temperatures fall below a given threshold for each type of PSC. The formation temperature is dependent on concentrations of nitric acid and water vapor, and the potential temperature of the air. PSCs can be formed from sulfate aerosols, nitric acid trihydrate (NAT), or ice.

http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/meteorology/temp_2012_MERRA_SH.html