record cold 2899, record warm 667

[Old Rocks]

actually more or less reliable data for the whole globe are available from 1979 only, so the discussion is futile for whatever methods used before - they are unreliable.

and in 1979 the global scare was - we are COOLING

And you are totaly full of shit. We have pretty damned accurate measurements of climate, not weather, but climate, from many, many proxies. But idiots like you will flap yap without doing any research at all on the evidence behind the scientists statements.

As for the 'cooling scare of the '70's', it only existed for cretins like you that read Newsweek and Time, rather than what the scientists were stating at the time. Indeed, there were far more predictions of warming than cooling, and those that did predict cooling to an ice age did so on a time scale of thousands of years.

Climate myths: They predicted global cooling in the 1970s - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

Update: A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then

 

[Old Rocks]

Here's something might might help people understand the relation between the Sun and our Climate

"The fatal flaw in the climate models seems to come from one repeated assumption. The assumption is that positive feedbacks from greenhouse effects can exceed negative feedbacks. While this situation might actually exist over a given time period (and reflect temperature increases during that time period as a result) the average over the long term must net to zero. If it doesn't, then everything we have learned about physics over the last 1000 years is wrong, and perpetual motion is possible. If a climatologist and a physicist were to discuss the matter, the conversation might be as follows:

Climatologist: I have a system of undetermined complexity and undetermined composition, floating and spinning in space. It has a few internal but steady state and minor energy sources. An external energy source radiates 1365 watts per meter squared at it on a constant basis. What will happen?

Physicist: The system will arrive at a steady state temperature which radiates heat to space that equals the total of the energy inputs. Complexity of the system being unknown, and the body spinning in space versus the radiated energy source, there will be cyclic variations in temperature, but the long term average will not change.

Climatologist: Well what if I change the composition of the system?

Physicist: See above.

Climatologist: Perhaps you don't understand my question. The system has an unknown quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere that absorbs energy in the same spectrum as the system is radiating. There are also quantities of carbon and oxygen that are combining to create more CO2 which absorbs more energy. Would this not raise the temperature of the system?

Physicist: There would be a temporary fluctuation in temperature caused by changes in how energy flows through the system, but for the long term average... See above.

Climatologist: But the CO2 would cause a small rise in temperature, which even if it was temporary would cause a huge rise in water vapour which would absorb even more of the energy being radiated by the system. This would have to raise the temperature of the system.

Physicist: There would be a temporary fluctuation in the temperature caused by changes in how energy flows through the system, but for the long term average... see above...."

The Physicist and the Climatologist; FOLLOW THE MONEY!, by David M. Hoffer

It's the Sun that drives climate. We're at a solar minimum, so there's been no evidence of warming these past 15 years

So, what is the position of the American Institute of Physicists? The largest Scientific Society in the world.

Statement on Human Impacts on Climate Change - American Institute of Physics

Statement on Human Impacts on Climate Change



In April 2004, the Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics endorsed a position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003. The statement follows:

"Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.

"Human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons and their substitutes, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), air pollution, increasing concentrations of airborne particles, and land alteration. A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects.

"Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased since the mid-1700s through fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, with more than 80% of this increase occurring since 1900. Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer.

"The complexity of the climate system makes it difficult to predict some aspects of human-induced climate change: exactly how fast it will occur, exactly how much it will change, and exactly where those changes will take place. In contrast, scientists are confident in other predictions. Mid-continent warming will be greater than over the oceans, and there will be greater warming at higher latitudes. Some polar and glacial ice will melt, and the oceans will warm; both effects will contribute to higher sea levels. The hydrologic cycle will change and intensify, leading to changes in water supply as well as flood and drought patterns. There will be considerable regional variations in the resulting impacts.

Of course our little tin hat bed wetter will dismiss this as part of a global conspiracy by 99% of the scientists in the world to fool all the rest of us. And only he and a few chosen others know the truth, revealed to him by the beings in his hollow moon.

 

[Wyatt earp]

actually more or less reliable data for the whole globe are available from 1979 only, so the discussion is futile for whatever methods used before - they are unreliable.

and in 1979 the global scare was - we are COOLING

And you are totaly full of shit. We have pretty damned accurate measurements of climate, not weather, but climate, from many, many proxies. But idiots like you will flap yap without doing any research at all on the evidence behind the scientists statements.

As for the 'cooling scare of the '70's', it only existed for cretins like you that read Newsweek and Time, rather than what the scientists were stating at the time. Indeed, there were far more predictions of warming than cooling, and those that did predict cooling to an ice age did so on a time scale of thousands of years.

Climate myths: They predicted global cooling in the 1970s - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

Update: A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then

It was also in Popular Science and Popular mechanics and that was main stream therory of the day we talked about it in grade school so quit trying to down play it.

 

[Redfish]

actually more or less reliable data for the whole globe are available from 1979 only, so the discussion is futile for whatever methods used before - they are unreliable.

and in 1979 the global scare was - we are COOLING

And you are totaly full of shit. We have pretty damned accurate measurements of climate, not weather, but climate, from many, many proxies. But idiots like you will flap yap without doing any research at all on the evidence behind the scientists statements.

As for the 'cooling scare of the '70's', it only existed for cretins like you that read Newsweek and Time, rather than what the scientists were stating at the time. Indeed, there were far more predictions of warming than cooling, and those that did predict cooling to an ice age did so on a time scale of thousands of years.

Climate myths: They predicted global cooling in the 1970s - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

Update: A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then

Write your next check to Al Gore and move on. You have been debunked thoroughly in this thread, so unless you enjoy being the butt of the joke, time to move on.

Man is not destroying the planet. Man is not changing the climate of the planet. Man is but a pimple on an elephants ass in the climate of the earth. We are here for a milisecond in the life of the earth. only a pompous ass (al gore) would think that man could control the climate of earth.

 

[JRK]

Here's something might might help people understand the relation between the Sun and our Climate

"The fatal flaw in the climate models seems to come from one repeated assumption. The assumption is that positive feedbacks from greenhouse effects can exceed negative feedbacks. While this situation might actually exist over a given time period (and reflect temperature increases during that time period as a result) the average over the long term must net to zero. If it doesn't, then everything we have learned about physics over the last 1000 years is wrong, and perpetual motion is possible. If a climatologist and a physicist were to discuss the matter, the conversation might be as follows:

Climatologist: I have a system of undetermined complexity and undetermined composition, floating and spinning in space. It has a few internal but steady state and minor energy sources. An external energy source radiates 1365 watts per meter squared at it on a constant basis. What will happen?

Physicist: The system will arrive at a steady state temperature which radiates heat to space that equals the total of the energy inputs. Complexity of the system being unknown, and the body spinning in space versus the radiated energy source, there will be cyclic variations in temperature, but the long term average will not change.

Climatologist: Well what if I change the composition of the system?

Physicist: See above.

Climatologist: Perhaps you don't understand my question. The system has an unknown quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere that absorbs energy in the same spectrum as the system is radiating. There are also quantities of carbon and oxygen that are combining to create more CO2 which absorbs more energy. Would this not raise the temperature of the system?

Physicist: There would be a temporary fluctuation in temperature caused by changes in how energy flows through the system, but for the long term average... See above.

Climatologist: But the CO2 would cause a small rise in temperature, which even if it was temporary would cause a huge rise in water vapour which would absorb even more of the energy being radiated by the system. This would have to raise the temperature of the system.

Physicist: There would be a temporary fluctuation in the temperature caused by changes in how energy flows through the system, but for the long term average... see above...."

The Physicist and the Climatologist; FOLLOW THE MONEY!, by David M. Hoffer

It's the Sun that drives climate. We're at a solar minimum, so there's been no evidence of warming these past 15 years

So, what is the position of the American Institute of Physicists? The largest Scientific Society in the world.

Statement on Human Impacts on Climate Change - American Institute of Physics

Statement on Human Impacts on Climate Change



In April 2004, the Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics endorsed a position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003. The statement follows:

"Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.

"Human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons and their substitutes, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), air pollution, increasing concentrations of airborne particles, and land alteration. A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects.

"Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased since the mid-1700s through fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, with more than 80% of this increase occurring since 1900. Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer.

"The complexity of the climate system makes it difficult to predict some aspects of human-induced climate change: exactly how fast it will occur, exactly how much it will change, and exactly where those changes will take place. In contrast, scientists are confident in other predictions. Mid-continent warming will be greater than over the oceans, and there will be greater warming at higher latitudes. Some polar and glacial ice will melt, and the oceans will warm; both effects will contribute to higher sea levels. The hydrologic cycle will change and intensify, leading to changes in water supply as well as flood and drought patterns. There will be considerable regional variations in the resulting impacts.

Of course our little tin hat bed wetter will dismiss this as part of a global conspiracy by 99% of the scientists in the world to fool all the rest of us. And only he and a few chosen others know the truth, revealed to him by the beings in his hollow moon.

this group that has the endorse = 99% of who? and what?
Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct)

Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming - WSJ.com

 

[hazlnut]

2899 Record cold temps vs 667 record warm temps in U.S. ? From July 24 to August 19 | Climate Depot
part of the lib deception

Try again idiot -- your source is a fraud.

ClimateDepot.com is the website of Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow employee Marc Morano, a conservative global warming denier who previously served as environmental communications director for a vocal political denier of climate change, Republican Sen. James Inhofe. Launched in spring 2009, Climate Depot claimed it would be "the Senate EPW website on steroids," and "the most comprehensive information center on climate news and the related issues of environment and energy."

 

[Freewill]

2899 Record cold temps vs 667 record warm temps in U.S. ? From July 24 to August 19 | Climate Depot
part of the lib deception

Try again idiot -- your source is a fraud.

ClimateDepot.com is the website of Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow employee Marc Morano, a conservative global warming denier who previously served as environmental communications director for a vocal political denier of climate change, Republican Sen. James Inhofe. Launched in spring 2009, Climate Depot claimed it would be "the Senate EPW website on steroids," and "the most comprehensive information center on climate news and the related issues of environment and energy."

So what constitutes a fraud in your mind is opposition to whatever it is you believe. Gottja.

 

[JRK]

2899 Record cold temps vs 667 record warm temps in U.S. ? From July 24 to August 19 | Climate Depot
part of the lib deception

Try again idiot -- your source is a fraud.

ClimateDepot.com is the website of Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow employee Marc Morano, a conservative global warming denier who previously served as environmental communications director for a vocal political denier of climate change, Republican Sen. James Inhofe. Launched in spring 2009, Climate Depot claimed it would be "the Senate EPW website on steroids," and "the most comprehensive information center on climate news and the related issues of environment and energy."

because I see events different than you do that makes me an idiot?
how will carbon off sets undo "global warming"
httpAlthough the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct)

://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
talkiing about a fraud

Welcome to Forbes
James Delingpole: Yet Another Climate-Change Scandal - WSJ.com

 

[bripat9643]

2899 Record cold temps vs 667 record warm temps in U.S. ? From July 24 to August 19 | Climate Depot
part of the lib deception

Try again idiot -- your source is a fraud.

ClimateDepot.com is the website of Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow employee Marc Morano, a conservative global warming denier who previously served as environmental communications director for a vocal political denier of climate change, Republican Sen. James Inhofe. Launched in spring 2009, Climate Depot claimed it would be "the Senate EPW website on steroids," and "the most comprehensive information center on climate news and the related issues of environment and energy."

Nothing you posted proves the site is a fraud. On the other hand, we know the Hockey Stick graph Michael Mann conjured up is a fraud.

 

[JRK]

2899 Record cold temps vs 667 record warm temps in U.S. ? From July 24 to August 19 | Climate Depot
part of the lib deception

Try again idiot -- your source is a fraud.

ClimateDepot.com is the website of Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow employee Marc Morano, a conservative global warming denier who previously served as environmental communications director for a vocal political denier of climate change, Republican Sen. James Inhofe. Launched in spring 2009, Climate Depot claimed it would be "the Senate EPW website on steroids," and "the most comprehensive information center on climate news and the related issues of environment and energy."

So what constitutes a fraud in your mind is opposition to whatever it is you believe. Gottja.

The radical left in this country is angry about what they have been told not being exactly true hardly ever
there meybe some truth to climate change
the why
the extent
the reason
the out-come
there all variables

I know that thi summer where I am has been un real (mild)
we have had lows in the 50s and days that never got out of the 70s

 

[The2ndAmendment]

UH-OH... we seriously can't have information like this getting out. No one will want to buy those idiot carbon credits.

I hear Obama and Gore make millions from those credits

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Yup, 3 weeks of data certainly debunks the years of warming trending we have seen that says otherwise.

Brilliant!

When the ****** ivory towers intellectuals produce more papers and studies on String Theory in an attempt to dismiss Relativity, I tend to deny the rest of their Communist churning shit as well.

Space has been proven to be smooth and continuous even at the Planck scale, as Einstein said it would be , yet they continue to dismiss all this evidence and continue promoting their "we live in 11 dimensions" bullshit.

Get real son, the ivory tower intelligentsia are all trying to make names for themselves, in academia, you publish or perish, even if you must publish garbage.

That's what global warming is, it's the ecological analogue of String Theory in physics or Marxism in Political Theory. Garbage scientists in, garbage research out.

 

[JRK]

UH-OH... we seriously can't have information like this getting out. No one will want to buy those idiot carbon credits.

I hear Obama and Gore make millions from those credits

Gore tickles me
He has the lefties in the palm of his hand
made millions off of them
100s of millions
and they just drink it up

At least the sandal wearing pine cone eating hippies in steamboat springs Co. and San Francisco have the commitment to make a diff in what they believe
I can respect that
And as far as carbon off sets go, what in gods name will they do?

 

[JRK]

Peru Declares State of Emergency in Puno as Temperatures Drop : Peruvian Times

 

[JRK]

Deep Cold: Interior and Northern Alaska Weather & Climate: Record Cold in the Northern Interior
15 degrees in August

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Earth reacts to higher temps and CO2 by making the planet wetter and colder.

The Carbon Cycle : Feature Articles

No, you didn't

 

[BlindBoo]

The Earth reacts to higher temps and CO2 by making the planet wetter and colder.

The Carbon Cycle : Feature Articles

Gee, you mean that the planet self corrects, and mankind has no role in it?

Imagine that.

Nope.

A recent article in The Economist stated that “over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar.” The Economist went to great lengths to point out that “the mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures … does not mean global warming is a delusion.” But the piece was predictably lauded by climate skeptics as “further evidence” of the case against climate change.

Except that … it wasn’t.

Think the Planet Isn't Warming? Check the Ocean : Discovery News

 

[JRK]

The Earth reacts to higher temps and CO2 by making the planet wetter and colder.

The Carbon Cycle : Feature Articles

Gee, you mean that the planet self corrects, and mankind has no role in it?

Imagine that.

Nope.

A recent article in The Economist stated that “over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar.” The Economist went to great lengths to point out that “the mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures … does not mean global warming is a delusion.” But the piece was predictably lauded by climate skeptics as “further evidence” of the case against climate change.

Except that … it wasn’t.

Think the Planet Isn't Warming? Check the Ocean : Discovery News

Sea Levels Falling | Ice Age Now
who do you trust?
the ones who want money to fix this "problem"
are the ones who do not?

 

[BlindBoo]

actually more or less reliable data for the whole globe are available from 1979 only, so the discussion is futile for whatever methods used before - they are unreliable.

and in 1979 the global scare was - we are COOLING

Another useful lie that is being endlessly repeated. Research has shown even the 70's the consensus among scientist was that the earth was warming. Time had a cover story featuring one theory that the earth was cooling.

 

[BlindBoo]

Here's something might might help people understand the relation between the Sun and our Climate

"The fatal flaw in the climate models seems to come from one repeated assumption. The assumption is that positive feedbacks from greenhouse effects can exceed negative feedbacks. While this situation might actually exist over a given time period (and reflect temperature increases during that time period as a result) the average over the long term must net to zero. If it doesn't, then everything we have learned about physics over the last 1000 years is wrong, and perpetual motion is possible. If a climatologist and a physicist were to discuss the matter, the conversation might be as follows:

Climatologist: I have a system of undetermined complexity and undetermined composition, floating and spinning in space. It has a few internal but steady state and minor energy sources. An external energy source radiates 1365 watts per meter squared at it on a constant basis. What will happen?

Physicist: The system will arrive at a steady state temperature which radiates heat to space that equals the total of the energy inputs. Complexity of the system being unknown, and the body spinning in space versus the radiated energy source, there will be cyclic variations in temperature, but the long term average will not change.

Climatologist: Well what if I change the composition of the system?

Physicist: See above.

Climatologist: Perhaps you don't understand my question. The system has an unknown quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere that absorbs energy in the same spectrum as the system is radiating. There are also quantities of carbon and oxygen that are combining to create more CO2 which absorbs more energy. Would this not raise the temperature of the system?

Physicist: There would be a temporary fluctuation in temperature caused by changes in how energy flows through the system, but for the long term average... See above.

Climatologist: But the CO2 would cause a small rise in temperature, which even if it was temporary would cause a huge rise in water vapour which would absorb even more of the energy being radiated by the system. This would have to raise the temperature of the system.

Physicist: There would be a temporary fluctuation in the temperature caused by changes in how energy flows through the system, but for the long term average... see above...."

The Physicist and the Climatologist; FOLLOW THE MONEY!, by David M. Hoffer

It's the Sun that drives climate. We're at a solar minimum, so there's been no evidence of warming these past 15 years

The current solar cycle is in full swing. It's just the number of sun spot is very low. So low in fact that the earth should be cooling. It's not.

Then there is this:

Indeed, add together the net global heat content for the atmosphere, land, ice, surface ocean waters and deep ocean waters, and the total shows a continued, clear — and, in fact, rising — increase. As environmental scientist and climate blogger Dana Nuccitelli, co-author of the aforementioned 2012 paper on ocean warming, points out, this means that “the slowed warming at the surface is only temporary, and consistent with (research indicating the existence of) ‘hiatus decades’ … The global warming end result will be the same, but the pattern of surface warming over time may be different than we expect … while many people wrongly believe global warming has stalled over the past 10–15 years, in reality that period is “the most sustained warming trend” in the past half century. Global warming has not paused, it has accelerated.”

Think the Planet Isn't Warming? Check the Ocean : Discovery News