LOL, Global warming scientists, trapped by thick ice.

[LogikAndReazon]

Its estimated that 5000 trees will have to be planted to negate the fossil fuels burned to rescue those imbeciles.....precious

 

[skookerasbil]

Its estimated that 5000 trees will have to be planted to negate the fossil fuels burned to rescue those imbeciles.....precious

Indeed........and go take a gander over to DRUDGE. All week, its been story after story of epic cold, frozen everything and references to cold similar to the surface of Mars.


The AGW mental cases sure have taken a stomp to the nut sack this past week.......now even the clueless of society thinks global warming is stoopid.


What a turnaround since 2006 for the climate crusader meatheads!!!

 

[novasteve]

Are people who don't agree with AGW "climatequeer"?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Its estimated that 5000 trees will have to be planted to negate the fossil fuels burned to rescue those imbeciles.....precious

i do it for a hundred grand

 

[OccamsSabre]

now even the clueless of society thinks global warming is stoopid.

Wouldn't they be expected even if global warming was the most obvious fact in the world? Clueless people aren't the people to aspire to.

 

[edthecynic]

Its estimated that 5000 trees will have to be planted to negate the fossil fuels burned to rescue those imbeciles.....precious

Indeed........and go take a gander over to DRUDGE. All week, its been story after story of epic cold, frozen everything and references to cold similar to the surface of Mars.


The AGW mental cases sure have taken a stomp to the nut sack this past week.......now even the clueless of society thinks global warming is stoopid.


What a turnaround since 2006 for the climate crusader meatheads!!!

So, because Drudge ignores the epic warm there must be only epic cold in the world.

The funny thing about the globe, when there is epic cold in one place, there is epic warm somewhere else.

The images of the River Yenisei with ducks splashing in the water, and grass in the parks, could be from autumn rather than deep in the winter in a city where December temperatures have gone as low as minus 47C.
Siberian ducks splashing water in December in the ice free River Yenisei. Incredible.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Its estimated that 5000 trees will have to be planted to negate the fossil fuels burned to rescue those imbeciles.....precious

Indeed........and go take a gander over to DRUDGE. All week, its been story after story of epic cold, frozen everything and references to cold similar to the surface of Mars.


The AGW mental cases sure have taken a stomp to the nut sack this past week.......now even the clueless of society thinks global warming is stoopid.


What a turnaround since 2006 for the climate crusader meatheads!!!

So, because Drudge ignores the epic warm there must be only epic cold in the world.

There is no evidence that human beings are driving the change in global temperatures.

Temperatures have not increased in the raw data for the last 17 years.

AGW supporters have been caught 'adjusting' data to support their claims, their data sets are deeply flawed, and in almost every case these frauds are appealing for more government funding, a practice that should stop. Policies should be set up so that a neutral group of scientists investigates claims raised by other scientists, so that self-serving bias is removed to some extent.

 

[JimBowie1958]

now even the clueless of society thinks global warming is stoopid.

Wouldn't they be expected even if global warming was the most obvious fact in the world? Clueless people aren't the people to aspire to.

It would be for you Warmistas.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Indeed, warmer temperatures cause more ice in the antarctic because the ice in the antarctic is not floating in the ocean but resting on top of land. Melting ice changes the salinity in the water, causing a change in the freezing temperature. This doesn't happen in the northern hemisphere because the ice is already in the water and is made up of salt water already.

Does it make sense to simply ignore the reduction in ice in the north and focus on a flawed understanding of how Antarctic conditions work.

Is the ice on Greenland not also sitting on dry land?

roflmao

Do you realize how small Greenland is, or are you forming your opinions based on a Mercator projection map? Most of the ice in the arctic is floating in the ocean. Go look at a map of the arctic circle before you embarrass yourself.

Yes, Greenland is the largest island on the planet, dude, and a subject of constant harping by Warmistas about how much of it is melting.

 

[Politico]

So now they are having to go save the dumbasses who were going to save the dumbasses. This shit just keeps getting better and better,

 

[JimBowie1958]

1. US weather is part of global weather and we should not be seeing record cold weather if the planet is still warming,

Says who, exactly? There is a difference between weather and climate, and local weather is not really a good determing factor of the state of the global climate.

This record cold wave is across the whole continent, not just local weather.

And given the claims that the planet is warming in general, such widespread and deep plunges in temperatures would suggest the averages were not going down. And Warmistas have given nothing in response but these silly retorts that this isnt global so it doesnt count?

And you seem unfamiliar with the idea of average occurences. Say we have two sets of dice and cannot mechanically break them to wee which pair os loaded. No problem, we can roll the dice a 30 or 40 times, record the results and see a clear pattern of different results.

Warmistas are saying the planets weather system is loaded to be warmer but instead they are on a cold streak.

which the New York Times and the London MET have all agreed has stopped for the last 17 years.

I was not aware that the New York Times or London MET were experts in climate change, and I'm not even sure this statement is true given what I read in the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=0

The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.

Met Office in the Media: 14 October 2012 | Met Office News Blog

Q.1 “First, please confirm that they do indeed reveal no warming trend since 1997.”

The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, ...

No, but warmer weather usually causes droughts and dry conditions, which contribute to forest fires.

An increase of .03 in a decade is statistically meaningless since the significant digits of acuracy involved does not measure in most cases top hundredths of a degree centigrade and the affects of the heat island effect and the poorly maintained substandard temperature measuring stations would seem to make the overall data measurement no better than a tenth of a degree. But warmistas cant let that get in the way, so they 'adjust' the temp data from substandard stations to match the other data and then says it doesnt matter anyway, close enough!

3. Negative 20 degrees on the mid Atlantic coast is not slightly cold.

It's not the climate, either.

An increase/decrease in average temperatures over an entire continent is indicative of a change in climate if it occurs over how much time? Ten years? Twenty years? We have been coming out of a 'Little Ice Age' for the last two centuries, so how are we to spot a reversal over what period of time, according to you?

Your claim that the globe is still warming has been disproven; you simply refuse to accept it.

By who, exactly? The mainstream scientific community seems to disagree with this blatantly obvious falsehood.

By anyone willing to show the raw data.

In any case, if global warming skeptics are going to use their unusually cold local weather conditions as "evidence," you also have to accept unusually hot local weather conditions. You are picking and choosing your evidence to support your predetermined views.

So because I sometimes roll a two as well as a seven on a pair of dice, you think one is as likely as the other?

You really do not understand statistical analysis.

And for more data to consider, take a look at the fraudulent 'adjustments' made to these data sets and the internally admitted poor quality of those sets.

Climategate: The Smoking Code | Watts Up With That?

Now, here is some actual proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data. Unfortunately, for readability’s sake, this code was written in Interactive Data Language (IDL) and is a pain to go through.

NOTE: This is an actual snippet of code from the CRU contained in the source file: briffa_Sep98_d.pro

1;
2; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
3;
4 yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
5 valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
6 if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
7
8 yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

So the fudge factor is adjusting each year by their calendar year starting with 1904, in five year increments. Note that starting in 1930 the function arbitrarily subtracts 0.1 degrees, then in 1936 it removes 0.25, etc. Then in 1955 it begins to ADD temperature adjustments beginning with 0.3, etc.

Is it any wonder we have 'global warming' according to these liars?

Just the name 'fudge factor' at line 5 should be a dead give away.


Very revealing programmer comments found in the hacked emails in the Climategate scandal, and they explain how we have 'Global Warming' no matter what the temperatures may actually be.

And note how they call the temperatures they want to see the 'real' temperatures, when ordinary people might think the MEASURED proxy temperatures would be the 'real' temperatures or else the proxy temps are worthless anyway!

Climategate: hide the decline ? codified | Watts Up With That?

WUWT blogging ally Ecotretas writes in to say that he has made a compendium of programming code segments that show comments by the programmer that suggest places where data may be corrected, modified, adjusted, or busted. Some the HARRY_READ_ME comments are quite revealing. For those that don’t understand computer programming, don’t fret, the comments by the programmer tell the story quite well even if the code itself makes no sense to you....

◾FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps12.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps15.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps24.pro; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

....

; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline
......

; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)

...


;getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been
; introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren't documented.

....


;I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as
; Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations

...


Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet
the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is
supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have

...

It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm
hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.

...

printf,1,’(April-September) temperature anomalies (from the 1961-1990 mean).’
printf,1,’Reconstruction is based on tree-ring density records.’
printf,1
printf,1,’NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY’
printf,1,’REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values’
printf,1,’will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be,’
printf,1,’which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful’
printf,1,’than it actually is.

...

printf,1,'temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set'
printf,1,'this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and'
printf,1,'this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring
printf,1,'density variations, but have been modified to look more like the
printf,1,'observed temperatures.'


.....


; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
(...)
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj

...

;*** MUST ALTER FUNCT_DECLINE.PRO TO MATCH THE COORDINATES OF THE
; START OF THE DECLINE *** ALTER THIS EVERY TIME YOU CHANGE ANYTHING ***

...

applied the calibration to unfiltered MXD data (which
; gives a zero mean over 1881-1960) after extending the calibration to boxes
; without temperature data (pl_calibmxd1.pro). We have identified and
; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
; data set. We now recalibrate this corrected calibrated dataset against
; the unfiltered 1911-1990 temperature data, and apply the same calibration
; to the corrected and uncorrected calibrated MXD data.

...

 

[edthecynic]

Indeed........and go take a gander over to DRUDGE. All week, its been story after story of epic cold, frozen everything and references to cold similar to the surface of Mars.


The AGW mental cases sure have taken a stomp to the nut sack this past week.......now even the clueless of society thinks global warming is stoopid.


What a turnaround since 2006 for the climate crusader meatheads!!!

So, because Drudge ignores the epic warm there must be only epic cold in the world.

Temperatures have not increased in the raw data for the last 17 years.

 

[laughinReaper]

Global warming and cooling are a non issue. The earth has already done both naturally way before man started wrecking the ecosystem. It's a natural process the will be repeated over and over again. Humans are just all up in arms because it makes life for our specis difficult. Either we adapt or die, it's that simple, GW people need to get over it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So, because Drudge ignores the epic warm there must be only epic cold in the world.

Temperatures have not increased in the raw data for the last 17 years.

Are you saying that chart is based on raw unadjusted numbers? If so then you are a pathetic liar.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Global warming and cooling are a non issue. The earth has already done both naturally way before man started wrecking the ecosystem. It's a natural process the will be repeated over and over again. Humans are just all up in arms because it makes life for our specis difficult. Either we adapt or die, it's that simple, GW people need to get over it.

We were wrecking it true, before realizing what damage we were doing and now that is being addressed.

Till you can find a more intelligent species to perform stewardship on the planet, you shouldnt damn your own species so hard.

 

[edthecynic]

Temperatures have not increased in the raw data for the last 17 years.

Are you saying that chart is based on raw unadjusted numbers? If so then you are a pathetic liar.

My chart, which is the exact same chart the deniers use to claim there has been no warming for 17 years, is based on anomalies. Nobody uses raw unadjusted numbers, nobody with a working brain that is.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Are you saying that chart is based on raw unadjusted numbers? If so then you are a pathetic liar.

My chart, which is the exact same chart the deniers use to claim there has been no warming for 17 years, is based on anomalies. Nobody uses raw unadjusted numbers, nobody with a working brain that is.

Lol, so now science cant use raw data, they all have to cook it first?

roflmao

Yes, you dumbass liar, lots of scientists still use raw data.

lol, you just cant make this shit up!

 

[itfitzme]

Are you saying that chart is based on raw unadjusted numbers? If so then you are a pathetic liar.

My chart, which is the exact same chart the deniers use to claim there has been no warming for 17 years, is based on anomalies. Nobody uses raw unadjusted numbers, nobody with a working brain that is.

Lol, so now science cant use raw data, they all have to cook it first?

roflmao

Yes, you dumbass liar, lots of scientists still use raw data.

lol, you just cant make this shit up!

Your are clearly and idiot.

Right out of the box, it's obvious that no one except you said that "science can't use raw data."

All science starts by collecting raw data. Then, depending on the nature of the observations, that raw data is combined into an average or some other representative value.

Why are you such an idiot? Can you explain it for us?

 

[OccamsSabre]

Are you saying that chart is based on raw unadjusted numbers? If so then you are a pathetic liar.

My chart, which is the exact same chart the deniers use to claim there has been no warming for 17 years, is based on anomalies. Nobody uses raw unadjusted numbers, nobody with a working brain that is.

Lol, so now science cant use raw data, they all have to cook it first?

roflmao

Yes, you dumbass liar, lots of scientists still use raw data.

lol, you just cant make this shit up!

Conclusions are not founded by simply charting raw data. All data is analyzed and tested to form hypotheses and tests. Go take a statistics course and see how far charting raw data and looking at it gets you before you have to whip out the calculator and do some hypothesis testing.

 

[OccamsSabre]

Yes, Greenland is the largest island on the planet, dude

You ever heard of Australia?

and a subject of constant harping by Warmistas about how much of it is melting.

Indeed, but how much of the Arctic ice is situated on Greenland? Try to stay focused here. Go take out a map and estimate the percentage of ice situated on land in the Arctic and tell me with a straight face that the majority is not sitting in the ocean.