So where does the warmth come from in the Arctic since they don't see the sun? Please, I'm interested in how at a place with no sun can be warmer than a place with 10 hours of it? Please, you have my attention.
some of these bright scientist don't even know about the solstice I suppose. Since winter didn't begin until December 21st, why would they believe we wouldn't see some warm weather? I'm just a message board junky, how is it I know this and they can't figure that out?
Holy crap, an entire city in 18 years. You think it got hotter?
Probably the most commmon expression on this board. And it's a little hard to tell someone that you believe their opinions are incorrect and that they are putting human culture at risk by thoughtless and ignorant behavior without at least an implication that you find them stupid. You, after all, just finished implying Frigid was stupid. If you'd like to end that sort of thing, I suggest you talk solely about the environment and not about people's beliefs, actions or choices.
Hah, Daily KOS.
You like it then?
It's actually a very good example.
No, it is not. An ad hominem would be an appeal to prejudice making use of alleged characteristics that are meaningless or irrelevant to the topic under discussion and often appeal to common prejudices or biases. An analogy such as this, illustrating the behavior of Republicans towards the AGW is about as completely on point as you could get.
Well, since he realized it was an appropriate gibe and you've demonstrated you don't understand "ad hominem", that might be a little hard to support.
I think he would like to argue the intelligence of the behavior of republicans towards global warming.
That would be Old Rocks. Thiis FrigidWeirdo you're talking to. They are two different people.
Probably the most commmon expression on this board. And it's a little hard to tell someone that you believe their opinions are incorrect and that they are putting human culture at risk by thoughtless and ignorant behavior without at least an implication that you find them stupid. You, after all, just finished implying Frigid was stupid. If you'd like to end that sort of thing, I suggest you talk solely about the environment and not about people's beliefs, actions or choices.
Please read WG-I of AR5 which may be found at www.ipcc.ch
Is that because you have some reason to believe they are all stupid? An actual consensus of opinion among actual experts on a given subject DOES increase the odds of that opinion being correct. That is the value of the consensus among scientists and it is all that has ever been claimed as its value.
I think I can guarantee that, as a group, the world's climate scientists have a wider, broader, deeper and exquisitely more detailed understanding of the reality of the Earth's climate than do you. You have no evidence to justify the statement you just made. So, why did you make it?
Though it is a very common accusation from deniers, no one that is making or running models or making predictions or projections believes or contends that they are reality. They are tools with which we can see where we're headed. They can and are used, as well, to explore alternatives: what might happens if we do this; if we do that; if we do nothing.
Perhaps you need to work on the basics before you get yourself in too deep here. Hockey sticks graphs in general, and MBH98/99 in particular, are not the product of models. They are instrument and proxy data. They have a hockey stick shape because temperatures have risen precipitously in the 20th century and beyond. The criticism one hears of them; the frequent claim that they've been debunked, is based on only two points. MBH 98 presented only weak warming if any during the (Medieval Warm Period (MWP AD950-1250), though the MWP varied significantly by region, and some folks didn't like that he blended proxy data with instrument data in his graphic, despite the fact that he said that he was doing so, that it was blatantly obvious from the graph and the methods he used for the transition had been widely and publicly discussed. The 'blade' of the graph - the precipitous rise in the 20th century and the characteristic that most concerns people whose primary interest isn't in debunking AGW whatever the evidence may say, has never been challenged.
HAHAHAHAHAAaaaa.... I hope you actually meant that to be funny.
I find it hilarious that someone thinks that it's warm in the North Pole and 18 degrees in Chicago getting 10 hours of sun light. Please have them explain how that is at all possible. Please.
more wash rinse repeat nonsense I see.Crick just posted up temps for Montreal and where is the warm? Where? how can there be a hockey stick and normal historical temps? Please explain.
no things with evidence are what are to be trusted, and to date, not too much factual info coming from the deck of the SS climategate.
do they have to make a living as well? The governments aren't going to fund them now will they?
The simple answer to this entire post is NOPE!! The long winded answer to this post is NOPE!!!!
well certainly post up what a grand solution to it all is. No one has to date, so what's the difference, we're all just going to keep disagreeing right? Unless of course you need money than they can take some wealth and re-appropriate it for us. what change the amount of CO2 or change temperatures, but it will make libturds look good I suppose to their base.
then how do trees grow under glaciers?Silly kid. I apply the most critical empirical data that I can see with my own eyes. The decades long recession of glaciers in the Cascades, the Rockies, and the Sierra's. The ealier springs, and a later winters I have seen in the course of my lifetime.
Believe it or not, I do. You're asking me to reconsider my sources without giving me sufficient reason to. When a source like the IPCC consistently gets its predictions wrong, and when it bastardizes the field of science, I am not going to trust them. For example this:
World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER
And this:
Even the IPCC's AR4 report and website attributes the rise of CO2 levels to the amount of global warming, however, the assertion can be proven false with this RSS Temperature anomaly chart, and this HadCRUT4 model here (below) showing that CO2 has had a negligible impact on overall warming. And the nail is the mistake the IPCC made regarding the Himalayan glaciers. They predicted that they would have completely "melted away" by the year 2035. They admitted that such a prediction was unfounded.
So I can deduce from this source that it is consistently wrong and is prone to lying:
Think what you will of "Climategate" but in addition to being wrong on a great deal many predictions, you have scientists involved in the IPCC peer review process hoping to exclude reviews that don't match the climate change narrative. For that, the IPCC, and any affiliated scientists, have, for me, been completely discredited as a viable source:
Climategate 2 and Corruption of Peer Review
The corruption I see is that the liars for the GOP will state whatever the energy corporations pay them to state. Regardless of how much it disagrees with reality. And, given the events we are seeing right now, and have seen for the past year, that is going to bite them in the ass in the coming elections.
and if current weather matches historical, then climate has changed agreed?
Actually all you did was show how the shifting PDO is effecting local weather. You missed entirely that climate and weather are two different things.
While weather might be doing X if you average all that weather together, you get climate.
It certainly appears greener.Holy crap, an entire city in 18 years. You think it got hotter?
wow now that's interesting.
well ain't chicago between the south and the Arctic? oh the stupid. Canada and Europe and Russia, and any other land mass that isn't warming in the northern hemisphere.
and if current weather matches historical, then climate has changed agreed?
Actually all you did was show how the shifting PDO is effecting local weather. You missed entirely that climate and weather are two different things.
While weather might be doing X if you average all that weather together, you get climate.
