This warm winter we're having

[jc456]

It's Christmas morning. Time to go open gifts now. I blew the whole global warming thing out of the water with an exact climatological analysis of this warm winter.

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.

and if current weather matches historical, then climate has changed agreed?

Define historical ?

The weather can fluctuate all it wants, as long as it the average of all weather lands within certain parameters its irrelevant. However once that average falls outside of those so called historical norms then it becomes a problem.

Within the climate history are events of Rapid Global Climate Change and they are typically associated with mass extinctions. The KT boundary extinction or the high permian extinction. Even the snowball earth event of say 650 million years ago is accompanied with a major alteration in the atmospheric chemistry.

Todays event however is unique in that for the first time we see the signature of fossil CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels in virtually all the excess CO2 observed in the atmosphere since the advent of the industrial age.

Think mass isotopic balance

how do you get climate if you aren't collecting data? That historical.

 

[Boston1]

It's Christmas morning. Time to go open gifts now. I blew the whole global warming thing out of the water with an exact climatological analysis of this warm winter.

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.

and if current weather matches historical, then climate has changed agreed?

Define historical ?

The weather can fluctuate all it wants, as long as it the average of all weather lands within certain parameters its irrelevant. However once that average falls outside of those so called historical norms then it becomes a problem.

Within the climate history are events of Rapid Global Climate Change and they are typically associated with mass extinctions. The KT boundary extinction or the high permian extinction. Even the snowball earth event of say 650 million years ago is accompanied with a major alteration in the atmospheric chemistry.

Todays event however is unique in that for the first time we see the signature of fossil CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels in virtually all the excess CO2 observed in the atmosphere since the advent of the industrial age.

Think mass isotopic balance

how do you get climate if you aren't collecting data? That historical.

Did someone say anything about NOT collecting data ?

 

[jc456]

It's Christmas morning. Time to go open gifts now. I blew the whole global warming thing out of the water with an exact climatological analysis of this warm winter.

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.

and if current weather matches historical, then climate has changed agreed?

Define historical ?

The weather can fluctuate all it wants, as long as it the average of all weather lands within certain parameters its irrelevant. However once that average falls outside of those so called historical norms then it becomes a problem.

Within the climate history are events of Rapid Global Climate Change and they are typically associated with mass extinctions. The KT boundary extinction or the high permian extinction. Even the snowball earth event of say 650 million years ago is accompanied with a major alteration in the atmospheric chemistry.

Todays event however is unique in that for the first time we see the signature of fossil CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels in virtually all the excess CO2 observed in the atmosphere since the advent of the industrial age.

Think mass isotopic balance

think recorded records and since one can't produce a single experiment that CO2 does anything to temps, you got climate. And normal climate today is normal climate today, and the weather today at the same temp as the recorded temps means normal.

 

[jc456]

It's Christmas morning. Time to go open gifts now. I blew the whole global warming thing out of the water with an exact climatological analysis of this warm winter.

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.

and if current weather matches historical, then climate has changed agreed?

Define historical ?

The weather can fluctuate all it wants, as long as it the average of all weather lands within certain parameters its irrelevant. However once that average falls outside of those so called historical norms then it becomes a problem.

Within the climate history are events of Rapid Global Climate Change and they are typically associated with mass extinctions. The KT boundary extinction or the high permian extinction. Even the snowball earth event of say 650 million years ago is accompanied with a major alteration in the atmospheric chemistry.

Todays event however is unique in that for the first time we see the signature of fossil CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels in virtually all the excess CO2 observed in the atmosphere since the advent of the industrial age.

Think mass isotopic balance

how do you get climate if you aren't collecting data? That historical.

Did someone say anything about NOT collecting data ?

Well then I don't get your confusion.

 

[mamooth]

Yes I'm declaring the temperatures have been faked

So you're nuts. No need to go further.

let's see the station and the temperature set. Name a station and I'll go look it up.

What's the point, given you've already declared the data is all faked?

They don't have "stations", of course, as you can't keep permanent stations on drifting ice. They do have buoys. New buoys are put on top of the ice pack each year, which report temperature by satellite communications. If you'd like to look at buoy data ...

North Pole 90N

This is the closest one to the pole, and it reached a temp of -8.5C on Dec 30.

AXIB Buoy 132472 Recent Data

 

[Muhammed]

wow now that's interesting.

The use of fossil fuels is quite literally greening the landmass of the Earth. Mostly for two reasons. The beneficial byproduct of burning fossil fuels and more efficient land usage.

 

[jc456]

Yes I'm declaring the temperatures have been faked

So you're nuts. No need to go further.

let's see the station and the temperature set. Name a station and I'll go look it up.

What's the point, given you've already declared the data is all faked?

They don't have "stations", of course, as you can't keep permanent stations on drifting ice. They do have buoys. New buoys are put on top of the ice pack each year, which report temperature by satellite communications. If you'd like to look at buoy data ...

North Pole 90N

This is the closest one to the pole, and it reached a temp of -8.5C on Dec 30.

AXIB Buoy 132472 Recent Data

dude/dudette, I posted it is all estimated, what else can I say. Faked is faked when one can't have a thermometer. post #338

 

[Boston1]

It's Christmas morning. Time to go open gifts now. I blew the whole global warming thing out of the water with an exact climatological analysis of this warm winter.

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.

and if current weather matches historical, then climate has changed agreed?

Define historical ?

The weather can fluctuate all it wants, as long as it the average of all weather lands within certain parameters its irrelevant. However once that average falls outside of those so called historical norms then it becomes a problem.

Within the climate history are events of Rapid Global Climate Change and they are typically associated with mass extinctions. The KT boundary extinction or the high permian extinction. Even the snowball earth event of say 650 million years ago is accompanied with a major alteration in the atmospheric chemistry.

Todays event however is unique in that for the first time we see the signature of fossil CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels in virtually all the excess CO2 observed in the atmosphere since the advent of the industrial age.

Think mass isotopic balance

think recorded records and since one can't produce a single experiment that CO2 does anything to temps, you got climate. And normal climate today is normal climate today, and the weather today at the same temp as the recorded temps means normal.

Actually there are direct experiments starting in the 1850s by a guy named Tyndall and on to today that prove exactly that. So yeah, there is lots of direct experimentation which proves that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Speaking of which a guy named Arrhenius dreamed up global warming back about 125 years ago. So no, none of this is new science and none of it is really in question other than by people with no background in science who simply don't understand it.

But its actually quite basic.

 

[jc456]

It's Christmas morning. Time to go open gifts now. I blew the whole global warming thing out of the water with an exact climatological analysis of this warm winter.

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.

and if current weather matches historical, then climate has changed agreed?

Define historical ?

The weather can fluctuate all it wants, as long as it the average of all weather lands within certain parameters its irrelevant. However once that average falls outside of those so called historical norms then it becomes a problem.

Within the climate history are events of Rapid Global Climate Change and they are typically associated with mass extinctions. The KT boundary extinction or the high permian extinction. Even the snowball earth event of say 650 million years ago is accompanied with a major alteration in the atmospheric chemistry.

Todays event however is unique in that for the first time we see the signature of fossil CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels in virtually all the excess CO2 observed in the atmosphere since the advent of the industrial age.

Think mass isotopic balance

think recorded records and since one can't produce a single experiment that CO2 does anything to temps, you got climate. And normal climate today is normal climate today, and the weather today at the same temp as the recorded temps means normal.

Actually there are direct experiments starting in the 1850s by a guy named Tyndall and on to today that prove exactly that. So yeah, there is lots of direct experimentation which proves that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Speaking of which a guy named Arrhenius dreamed up global warming back about 125 years ago. So no, none of this is new science and none of it is really in question other than by people with no background in science who simply don't understand it.

But its actually quite basic.

well post it up here, let's see that there experiment.

And oh you got that climate thing down now do ya?

 

[Boston1]

University Libraries | CU-Boulder

ask for
Tyndall 1859
Interrogation of Nature
Royal Institute
London

Beyond that you'll have to do your own homework, otherwise I can only assume, as a great man once said, "you aint going to learn, what you don't want to know".

 

[jc456]

University Libraries | CU-Boulder

ask for
Tyndall 1859
Interrogation of Nature
Royal Institute
London

Beyond that you'll have to do your own homework, otherwise I can only assume, as a great man once said, "you aint going to learn, what you don't want to know".

So, you don't have one! Go figure.

 

[Muhammed]

In 1885 there was so many

It's Christmas morning. Time to go open gifts now. I blew the whole global warming thing out of the water with an exact climatological analysis of this warm winter.

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.

and if current weather matches historical, then climate has changed agreed?

Define historical ?

The weather can fluctuate all it wants, as long as it the average of all weather lands within certain parameters its irrelevant. However once that average falls outside of those so called historical norms then it becomes a problem.

Within the climate history are events of Rapid Global Climate Change and they are typically associated with mass extinctions. The KT boundary extinction or the high permian extinction. Even the snowball earth event of say 650 million years ago is accompanied with a major alteration in the atmospheric chemistry.

Todays event however is unique in that for the first time we see the signature of fossil CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels in virtually all the excess CO2 observed in the atmosphere since the advent of the industrial age.

Think mass isotopic balance

Informal fallacy.

Petitio principii.

 

[Boston1]

University Libraries | CU-Boulder

ask for
Tyndall 1859
Interrogation of Nature
Royal Institute
London

Beyond that you'll have to do your own homework, otherwise I can only assume, as a great man once said, "you aint going to learn, what you don't want to know".

So, you don't have one! Go figure.

Um, I just gave you one. The first one of many. If you are not willing to follow the links provided or study the issue in a reasonable and rational manner, I'm not sure how I can help you understand the science. Which is extremely clear.

Once again. You are going to have to do a little of your own homework if you want to understand this issue. If you are not interested in understanding the issue and instead are simply determined to cling to an ideological view. Then I'm out.

As a great man once said
You aint going to learn
what you don't want to know

 

[Wyatt earp]

It's Christmas morning. Time to go open gifts now. I blew the whole global warming thing out of the water with an exact climatological analysis of this warm winter.

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.

and if current weather matches historical, then climate has changed agreed?

Define historical ?

The weather can fluctuate all it wants, as long as it the average of all weather lands within certain parameters its irrelevant. However once that average falls outside of those so called historical norms then it becomes a problem.

Within the climate history are events of Rapid Global Climate Change and they are typically associated with mass extinctions. The KT boundary extinction or the high permian extinction. Even the snowball earth event of say 650 million years ago is accompanied with a major alteration in the atmospheric chemistry.

Todays event however is unique in that for the first time we see the signature of fossil CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels in virtually all the excess CO2 observed in the atmosphere since the advent of the industrial age.

Think mass isotopic balance

from the burning of fossil fuels in virtually all the excess CO2

-------------------------

Bullshit....

Judging by the New NASA C02 sattelite a shit load of C02 is comming from the southern hemisphere and you know damn well that is 12C/13C and not fossil fuel 14C...

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

Like the article said, abnormally strong low and high pressure weather systems caused winds that drew warm air up from the south.

Is it the concept of "wind" that confuses you? Or are you declaring that the temperatures have been faked?

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.

Yes I'm declaring the temperatures have been faked, let's see the station and the temperature set. Name a station and I'll go look it up.

Oh wait here from Freak storm pushes North Pole 50 degrees above normal to melting point

"Although there are no permanent weather stations at the North Pole (or really anywhere in the Arctic Ocean), we can use weather forecast models, which ingest data from satellites and surrounding surface observations, to estimate conditions at Earth’s most northern location.

On Wednesday morning, temperatures over a vast area around North Pole were somewhere between 30 and 35 degrees Fahrenheit, and for at least a brief moment, surpassed the 32-degree threshold at exactly 90 degrees North, according to data from the GFS forecast model."

A model, not a thermometer. it is assumed.

"A model, not a thermometer. it is assumed."

In Layman terms, ITS NOT LEGITIMATE DATA and it is FABRICATED... MADE UP... GUESSED!

Models are not empirical evidence of anything!.. And now they are trying to pass of off their hype and bull shit with made up crap... They call it a "freak storm" when these kinds of intrusion into the arctic are not unusual and have been seen many times before today. Why is it they are trying to dupe the masses with lies and deceit about things which occur cyclically over and over again?

 

[Old Rocks]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/...showing-global-carbon-dioxide-concentrations/



Figure 3: Processed data from Oct 1 – Nov 11, 2014



Figure 4 : Processed data from Nov 16 – Dec 31, 2014



Figure 5 : Processed data from Jan 1 – Feb 15, 2015



Figure 6 : Processed data from Feb 16 – Mar 31, 2015


CO2 story

Figure 7 : Processed data from Apr 1 – May 15, 2015



Figure 8 : Processed data from May 16 – Jun 30, 2015



Figure 9 : Processed data from Jul 1 – Aug 15, 2015



Figure 10 : Processed data from Aug 16- Sep 12, 2015

 

[Boston1]

Yeah, anytime someone would rather consider the garbage from wattsupwiththat rather than actually consider the centuries of established verified peer reviewed science.

I'm out

There's really no point in arguing religion when science is the subject, and a subject which is obviously going to be ignored, in favor of the ideological nonsense prevalent among the USA right wing nutters and only the American right wing nutters, the rest of humanity, well, they're at least capable of facing reality.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Finally: visualized OCO2 satellite data showing global carbon dioxide concentrations



Figure 3: Processed data from Oct 1 – Nov 11, 2014



Figure 4 : Processed data from Nov 16 – Dec 31, 2014



Figure 5 : Processed data from Jan 1 – Feb 15, 2015



Figure 6 : Processed data from Feb 16 – Mar 31, 2015


CO2 story

Figure 7 : Processed data from Apr 1 – May 15, 2015



Figure 8 : Processed data from May 16 – Jun 30, 2015



Figure 9 : Processed data from Jul 1 – Aug 15, 2015



Figure 10 : Processed data from Aug 16- Sep 12, 2015

Thank you for highlighting that mankind has no discernable impact on CO2 output

 

[jc456]

University Libraries | CU-Boulder

ask for
Tyndall 1859
Interrogation of Nature
Royal Institute
London

Beyond that you'll have to do your own homework, otherwise I can only assume, as a great man once said, "you aint going to learn, what you don't want to know".

So, you don't have one! Go figure.

Um, I just gave you one. The first one of many. If you are not willing to follow the links provided or study the issue in a reasonable and rational manner, I'm not sure how I can help you understand the science. Which is extremely clear.

Once again. You are going to have to do a little of your own homework if you want to understand this issue. If you are not interested in understanding the issue and instead are simply determined to cling to an ideological view. Then I'm out.

As a great man once said
You aint going to learn
what you don't want to know

well I did as you stated and there wasn't one. That's why I replied as I did.

 

[jc456]

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.

Like the article said, abnormally strong low and high pressure weather systems caused winds that drew warm air up from the south.

Is it the concept of "wind" that confuses you? Or are you declaring that the temperatures have been faked?

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.

Yes I'm declaring the temperatures have been faked, let's see the station and the temperature set. Name a station and I'll go look it up.

Oh wait here from Freak storm pushes North Pole 50 degrees above normal to melting point

"Although there are no permanent weather stations at the North Pole (or really anywhere in the Arctic Ocean), we can use weather forecast models, which ingest data from satellites and surrounding surface observations, to estimate conditions at Earth’s most northern location.

On Wednesday morning, temperatures over a vast area around North Pole were somewhere between 30 and 35 degrees Fahrenheit, and for at least a brief moment, surpassed the 32-degree threshold at exactly 90 degrees North, according to data from the GFS forecast model."

A model, not a thermometer. it is assumed.

"A model, not a thermometer. it is assumed."

In Layman terms, ITS NOT LEGITIMATE DATA and it is FABRICATED... MADE UP... GUESSED!

Models are not empirical evidence of anything!.. And now they are trying to pass of off their hype and bull shit with made up crap... They call it a "freak storm" when these kinds of intrusion into the arctic are not unusual and have been seen many times before today. Why is it they are trying to dupe the masses with lies and deceit about things which occur cyclically over and over again?

At least that site admitted it was made up. They reported it as fact though.