B-Man Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Climate Alarmists Warm It Up :They overcook the evidence of 2014 to support their shaky predictions of global warming. By Rupert Darwall The year 2014 had scarcely expired before being declared the warmest year on record. First off was the Japan Meteorological Agency. The year 2014 surpassed 1998 to set a new record by all of five one hundredths of one degree Centigrade, according to the agency’s preliminary numbers. Then Britain’s Met Office announced that 2014 was the warmest year in the 355 years of the Central England Temperature series. Each year, global-warming adherents anticipate an El Niño (a strong warming phase in the Pacific) as the physical manifestation of global warming’s Second Coming to herald the end of the barren years of flat-lining global temperatures. The Center for American Progress’s Joe Romm called the 2014 record doubly impressive. As Romm noted, “We’re still waiting for the start of El Niño” but got a temperature record nonetheless. After years of climate-change prognosticators’ pointing to extreme weather events — Arctic (but not Antarctic) sea-ice extent and, as they claim, excess heat disappearing into the ocean — as evidence of global warming, it is scientifically healthy that attention is focusing back on trends in global surface and atmospheric temperature, as the theory is that global warming should drive climate change. Indeed, the Met Office press release belies alarmist notions of “climate disruption,” “climate breakdown,” and the other terms trotted out from the shop-soiled lexicon of alarmism. {snip} Most jaw-dropping was Oreskes’s claim that climate change is happening “faster than scientists predicted.” This is flat-out untrue. A 2013 commentary co-authored by Francis Zwiers, an elected member of the IPCC Bureau and former IPCC lead coordinating author, found that recent observed global warming was significantly less than the surface trend simulated by climate models. In the 15 years to 2012, the observed trend of 0.05 degrees Centigrade per decade — not significantly different from zero, according to the authors — was more than four times smaller than the averaged simulated trend of 20 climate models used by the IPCC. Since the turn of the century, the 15-year running trend in observed temperature has fallen back to the 1900–2012 trend, an increase of around seven tenths of one degree Centigrade per century. For Oreskes’s claim to be valid, scientists would have had to be expecting global cooling. In science, models are used to produce predictions that can be tested against nature and thereby advance scientific knowledge. On this basis, the clear inference of the disagreement between climate-model simulations and observations over the past two decades is that scientists’ current understanding of the climate system is faulty. Climate science is not normal science: It has become the leading branch of global therapeutics. Climate-model outputs are used as a tool win the political battle for policies believed necessary to save a dying planet. More at the link: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 003.50 Or, I suppose it's actually 3.5234...because I said so. It's my number that I made up, try to disprove it! Anyway, good posts. As I have been saying, things are far from settled, and these people have a lot more work to do, and a lot less talking to do, if they truly want to move this forward scientifically. But....they don't want to do work. Work gets them nothing more than a $40k grant. Talking gets them on TV, gets them book deals, etc. I have been saying all along, I highly doubt finishing the work was ever the true goal. This was never about science, or hard work. This was about getting just enough evidence to create (now extremely tenous) support for the AGW theory, taking that to the leftist politicians, and them turning on their big, propaganda-->$-->power-->propaganda, perpetual, BS machines. These "scientists" saw 1st class for the first time in their lives, because some of that $ got kicked back to them. Now? All of that $ is gone. Sure, you get the odd clown and his $100 million in campaign funds to Ds who towed the watermelon line(green on the outside, red in the inside). The problem? That $100 million was pissed away, as all the D Senators it was intended to help are now out of office. The scientists saw none of that $100 million. The big time is over for these people. Yep... Totally agree. You guys joke about it, but I am on your side... You've just explained the Asian carp boondoogle that The Great Lakes States (namely Michigan) and scientists @ the University of Notre Dam are selling! Thank God there is a national economy to be run and the southern states will have no part of the carp boogieman some claim is @ the door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 The year 2014 surpassed 1998 to set a new record by all of five one hundredths of one degree Centigrade, according to the agency’s preliminary numbers. Artificial precision, almost certainly. Though that accuracy in temperature measurement is possible on a laboratory scale, or even a local scale, I can't even begin to think of a technology to measure global temperature to that level of accuracy. Then Britain’s Met Office announced that 2014 was the warmest year in the 355 years of the Central England Temperature series. Sure. When the US has the coldest winter in decades, everyone shouts "But that's just the US! The rest of the world was warm!" But the Met Office announces that central England had its warmest year on record, and that local measurement extrapolates globally. Using that as evidence of global warming is so transparently dishonest and hypocritical one can only wonder if the Met Office employs NFL refs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) Yep... Totally agree. You guys joke about it, but I am on your side... You've just explained the Asian carp boondoogle that The Great Lakes States (namely Michigan) and scientists @ the University of Notre Dam are selling! Thank God there is a national economy to be run and the southern states will have no part of the carp boogieman some claim is @ the door. Somehow....I knew carp was in the cards for me in this thread. Sooner or later. Also, I was looking back through this thread and I realized something if the OP knows its a scam, doesn't everybody? There's little doubt that the OP is less than stellar intellectually. However, I wonder how many of him exist in the county, today? I mean, there was a time when most of the country(2006) was buying this crap completely. Al Gore said we'd see 3 feet of water in NYC in 2016(and Rush Limbaugh still has a timer running on that. Hilarious. I can't wait for when that timer runs out. Should be a fun time. Go down to NYC with a sign, park it in front of NBC HQ, "Where's the flooding, Al, and the rest of you D-bags?" Make a day of it. ) Now? I highly doubt most people are still buying it. When even the dumbest know? It's over. This has nothing to do with you/I'm not calling you dumb. I merely stuck 2 posts together because I am lazy. Edited January 8, 2015 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I mean, there was a time when most of the country(2006) was buying this crap completely. Al Gore said we'd see 3 feet of water in NYC in 2016(and Rush Limbaugh still has a timer running on that. Hilarious. I can't wait for when that timer runs out. Should be a fun time. Go down to NYC with a sign, park it in front of NBC HQ, "Where's the flooding, Al, and the rest of you D-bags?" Make a day of it. ) Four words: "Superstorm Sandy. Case closed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Four words: "Superstorm Sandy. Case closed." BS. He meant 3 feet of river/ocean constantly covering the city. But, I'm sure that will be the ready-made excuse in 2016....when I'm standing at Battery Park with no shoes or socks and my pants rolled up....wading through the invisible water. No, I'm really going to do that. Just like the Southpark episode. Youtube it. Then I'm going to go to places like the Village and ask people what they are going to do now that NY is under so much water. I may even try to pretend I am a kyak salesman, and try to sell them kyaks with a straight face, as though the water is really there. Something...I'm gonna do something funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 BS. He meant 3 feet of river/ocean constantly covering the city. Of course. But you know that's exactly what the response is going to be. "Well, that's what he meant!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) Somehow....I knew carp was in the cards for me in this thread. Sooner or later. Also, I was looking back through this thread and I realized something if the OP knows its a scam, doesn't everybody? There's little doubt that the OP is less than stellar intellectually. However, I wonder how many of him exist in the county, today? I mean, there was a time when most of the country(2006) was buying this crap completely. Al Gore said we'd see 3 feet of water in NYC in 2016(and Rush Limbaugh still has a timer running on that. Hilarious. I can't wait for when that timer runs out. Should be a fun time. Go down to NYC with a sign, park it in front of NBC HQ, "Where's the flooding, Al, and the rest of you D-bags?" Make a day of it. ) Now? I highly doubt most people are still buying it. When even the dumbest know? It's over. This has nothing to do with you/I'm not calling you dumb. I merely stuck 2 posts together because I am lazy. Sorry. I try and refrain, but see the "bad science" almost everyday... Really... I called it out 6 years ago, and I am calling it out now... And will call it out 16 years from now. It hits home. I know you hate it, but I am actually agreeing with... It's your 100's of millions of dollars too! Edited January 9, 2015 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 More at the link: Most jaw-dropping was Oreskes’s claim that climate change is happening “faster than scientists predicted.” This is flat-out untrue. Oh, so it's just about how fast its happening? I wish these deniers would argue if its true or not that all this extra carbon--if they is extra carbon--in the air heats the planet more. There is more carbon, right? And that traps heat, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Oh, so it's just about how fast its happening? I wish these deniers would argue if its true or not that all this extra carbon--if they is extra carbon--in the air heats the planet more. There is more carbon, right? And that traps heat, right? Carbon doesn't cause global warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Carbon doesn't cause global warming. Directly or at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Directly or at all Is that a dumbass question, or a dumbass statement? I'll assume it's a dumbass question, in which case I'll go with: at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Is that a dumbass question, or a dumbass statement? I'll assume it's a dumbass question, in which case I'll go with: at all. So you totally disagree with this theory about warming and the carbon cycle? http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 So you totally disagree with this theory about warming and the carbon cycle? http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php No. You just don't understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 No. You just don't understand it. Sure I do. Increased carbon in the atmosphere holds in more heat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Sure I do. Increased carbon in the atmosphere holds in more heat Like I said, you don't understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Like I said, you don't understand it. ha ha, you are such a phony bologna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 phony bologna ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Sure I do. Increased carbon in the atmosphere holds in more heat My gosh, you are safe! Many of us here were concerned that maybe you had visited NYC and drowned in the rising seawater there. On a side note to all you believers out there, I'm looking for investors for my newly formed Yellow Gondola Company of New York. Let me know if you are interested and I'll send you a prospectus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 My gosh, you are safe! Many of us here were concerned that maybe you had visited NYC and drowned in the rising seawater there. On a side note to all you believers out there, I'm looking for investors for my newly formed Yellow Gondola Company of New York. Let me know if you are interested and I'll send you a prospectus. Go clean a toilet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 ha ha, you are such a phony bologna Then explain to us how atmospheric graphite causes global warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Go clean a toilet So, you are above cleaning toilets? I suppose you hire illegal aliens to do this work and pay them under the table? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Then explain to us how atmospheric graphite causes global warming.Now you're just being daft. EVERYBODY knows he meant atmospheric diamonds cause global warming and the reason is that they act like magnifying glasses in the bright sunlight spreading the heat widely just like a little kid uses one to spread () light and burn ants. Those atmospheric diamonds can also be collected by the IRS and the proceeds of selling them can be used to pay for FREE community college for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Now you're just being daft. EVERYBODY knows he meant atmospheric diamonds cause global warming and the reason is that they act like magnifying glasses in the bright sunlight spreading the heat widely just like a little kid uses one to spread ( ) light and burn ants. Those atmospheric diamonds can also be collected by the IRS and the proceeds of selling them can be used to pay for FREE community college for all. Yep. B. O. is just a few pen strokes and phone calls away from getting a diploma above every bed, and a rainbow powered unicorn in every garage. He's awesome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Then explain to us how atmospheric graphite causes global warming.Why would I do that, I'mnot the one denying that carbon causes warming like you are. You are just trying to go off down the rabbit hole because you said something stupid So, you are above cleaning toilets? I suppose you hire illegal aliens to do this work and pay them under the table? No, you just remind me of a dirty toilet Now you're just being daft. You got that part right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Why would I do that, I'mnot the one denying that carbon causes warming like you are. You are just trying to go off down the rabbit hole because you said something stupid No, you just remind me of a dirty toilet You got that part right! Not even you are this stupid. And it's not even very good trolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Not even you are this stupid. And it's not even very good trolling. If it were, he would have brought up chem-trails and watched your head explode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 If it were, he would have brought up chem-trails and watched your head explode. !@#$in' chemtrails. Between that and homeopathy...people who believe that **** are !@#$ing ignorant !@#$ing mother!@#$ers who have their heads stuck so far up their asses that if they ever saw a dentist (which they don't, because...you know, fluoride, and I'm sure there's some bull **** homeopathic option to root canals) he'd check them for polyps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 !@#$in' chemtrails. Between that and homeopathy...people who believe that **** are !@#$ing ignorant !@#$ing mother!@#$ers who have their heads stuck so far up their asses that if they ever saw a dentist (which they don't, because...you know, fluoride, and I'm sure there's some bull **** homeopathic option to root canals) he'd check them for polyps. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Everyone knows that carbon particulate matter in the upper atmosphere acts to cool but that carbon particulate matter that falls to the surface of the earth acts to warm and increase ice melt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Everyone knows that carbon particulate matter in the upper atmosphere acts to cool but that carbon particulate matter that falls to the surface of the earth acts to warm and increase ice melt. So that's the real solution to global warming: vacuuming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) Everyone knows that carbon particulate matter in the upper atmosphere acts to cool but that carbon particulate matter that falls to the surface of the earth acts to warm and increase ice melt. Oh Jesus Christ here we go again with the particulate matter. Hey clown: nothing has changed since my last Global Warming thread: 1. There has been an 18 year "pause" in Global Warming that not one model can account for properly. Most are off by an order of magnitude at least. 2. Thus, the model creaters(or the myth creaters) have been scurrying around trying to find an excuse for the pause, and to explain away why their models are failing miserably to be consistent with observations. As Tom said, they are even trying to play the artifical precison game, hoping that will regain them some credibility. 3. Thus, since the beginning of my thread last year, exactly nothing has changed...2 speculations(not fact, not reasearch, not repeatable experiments) are the ONLY thing standing between AGW, and launghing-stock status. Either the ocen is hiding the heat at the bottom, or, pollution is both causing and stopping Global Warming at the same time. No one has brought forth hard evidence of either being true since I started my thread last year. In fact, the first one defies our current understanding of ocean currents. And, the second one, if you think about it, is a license to keep polluting! IF pollution cancels itself out....then where's the problem? Finally there's the new thing: "we don't understand clouds....it could be the clouds". Is there a finer example of grasping at every straw on the way down? Yes and we don't understand string theory fully either...it could be the strings! There could be some as yet undefined particle...that feeds on/absorbs your favorite thing: particulate matter, and craps it into another universe. Man, those people must be pissed. Or, maybe they are happy, since all their plants are growing so nicely now. Hey, if you guys get to pull schit out of your ass, why don't the rest of us? Edited January 10, 2015 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Not even you are this stupid. And it's not even very good trolling. I know I'm not stupid, but I'm having my doubts about you. I've never heard a denier go so far as to say carbon doesn't even trap more heat in the atmosphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 I know I'm not stupid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Oh Jesus Christ here we go again with the particulate matter. Hey clown: nothing has changed since my last Global Warming thread: 1. There has been an 18 year "pause" in Global Warming that not one model can account for properly. Most are off by an order of magnitude at least. 2. Thus, the model creaters(or the myth creaters) have been scurrying around trying to find an excuse for the pause, and to explain away why their models are failing miserably to be consistent with observations. As Tom said, they are even trying to play the artifical precison game, hoping that will regain them some credibility. 3. Thus, since the beginning of my thread last year, exactly nothing has changed...2 speculations(not fact, not reasearch, not repeatable experiments) are the ONLY thing standing between AGW, and launghing-stock status. Either the ocen is hiding the heat at the bottom, or, pollution is both causing and stopping Global Warming at the same time. We do know there is a lot more carbon in the atmosphere and that it causes warming, though, right? Dev/null....classic ignorant Conservative retard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Oh Jesus Christ here we go again with the particulate matter. Hey clown: nothing has changed since my last Global Warming thread: 1. There has been an 18 year "pause" in Global Warming us? And on top of that those damn GW hoaxer's constantly cherry pick data points!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 I know I'm not stupid, but I'm having my doubts about you. I've never heard a denier go so far as to say carbon doesn't even trap more heat in the atmosphere. Then explain how atmospheric graphite causes global warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 An interesting article - still based in part on computer models, but relevant to the topic: "Because there was also less CO2 being removed from the atmosphere by vegetation and by weathering rocks than today, total atmospheric CO2 levels were probably five times higher than at the present, the researchers said. The findings suggest much higher CO2 levels than had been estimated in previous studies conducted in the 1980s and 1990s. That research had been based on indirect data from sea-level variations. Since then, scientists' understanding of Earth has improved significantly, and researchers already had begun to suspect that the old estimates were imperfect." http://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Then explain how atmospheric graphite causes global warming. So are you saying carbonaceous aerosols don't decrease snow and ice abedos causing a climate forcing increase Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts