This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
US Climate Update: Warmest 12 Months On Record
The Northern Hemisphere just experienced the all-time warmest June on record, at 2.34°F above average. The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during June was 71.2°F, which is 2.0°F above the 20th century average, contributing to a record-warm first half of the year and the warmest 12-month period the nation has experienced since record-keeping began in 1895. Scorching temperatures during the second half of the month led many cities to set all-time temperature records. The nation, as a whole, experienced its tenth driest June on record. Record and near-record dry conditions were present across the Intermountain West. Over 170 all-time warm temperature records were broken or tied during the month. Temperatures in South Carolina (113°F) and Georgia (112°F) are currently under review by the U.S. State Climate Extremes Committee as possible all-time statewide temperature records. According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, as of July 3, 56.0 percent of the contiguous U.S. experienced drought conditions, the most since records began.
Globally, the US is anomalous...
but it is the entire Northern Hemisphere that is bathing in the heat...
As rain (or lack thereof) remains a massive problem...
With some of the craziest anomalies ever in the US...
Source: NOAA
»
- 22372 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Coincidentally, a massive solar storm hit earth yesterday
http://zeenews.india.com/news/space/massive-solar-flare-hits-earth_787319.html
The eco-tards don't give a shit. You could tell them there was a fucking fire under their asses and they'd tell you they were hot because you were breathing on them. Nevermind the smoke..
Edward Abbey was an eco-tard, dipshit.
He was a brilliant writer and insightful mind.
You reek of others ideas.
Yeah, because I choose to live vicariously through others.. whatever, you fucking troll.
Reading books by OTHERS is doing what now? oh that's right.. REEKING OF OTHERS' IDEAS. Dumb fuck..
To say something like that so sweepingly just goes to show how much of a spit filled whore you are. Go fuck a donkey and die..
Ugrev:
Your hate-filled, misdirected anger towards me gives me a glimmer of hope for our future.
There is hope where there is passion like yours.
Long live ZH, my pissed off bro!
Really though UG, read some Edward Abbey.
Those who refuse to accept the possibility of man-made global warming denied for years that there was warming (even a possibility would fly in the face of their "I get to do what I want and go fuck yourself" ideology). Now they blame the sun, because we all know that the sun is hot and everything. And they accept that there is climate change, but they say that grant money to scientists is more compelling than billions of profits to oil and coal companies. And they have no problem with the fact that a few years ago they just plain denied there was global warming and they said the scientists were full of shit about that.
Austria experienced its 6th warmest period since 1767 (on chart). I guess the animal farts of the prior warmer 5 periods must'a been nasty and started the whole global warming thingy...damn animal farts.
Wait, someone else of your ilk here said we only go back 100 years and before that science can't possibly know. Which is it? Farts or science doesn't know shit?
Animal Fart Denier!!!...ROTFL!!!
The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during June was 71.2°F, which is 2.0°F above the 20th century average, contributing to a record-warm first half of the year and the warmest 12-month period the nation has experienced since record-keeping began in 1895.
1895! the dawn of record keeping!
I think that was the year Al Gore's grand-pappy invented the wheel.
Pah-leeze. I used to know people who were alive in 1895.
How many years must pass before it is acceptable to have a temperature record?
The Koch Brothers told me that scientists have no means to determine average temperatures in the past before records were kept, despite all their fancy instruments and stuff.
Well, they do but what that data show is that the climate has whipped around quite a bit in the last several hundred and several thousand years, often quite suddenly, so that tends not to get as much press.
And that's just for starters. In the tens of thousands of years time frame things get even more exciting.
And yet some people whip themselves into a froth over a half century, or a year...a minute, nothing.
But...the "consensus is in"...the "debate is over"...Gore made a poem about it, impaled it with his hockey stick and planted it on the UN lawn. That settles it.
Very scientific.
Got that right Rand. They are experts at moving the goalposts. As always, just follow the money. All the denialist talking points you will read below come straight from the Koch-funded Heartland Foundation.
Yup. They don't wanna get blamed for having promoted SUVs just when we needed to burn less oil. Imagine that: 3 oil shocks that battered the US economy and weakened US independance and still they managed not only to undo all the energy conservation measures of the 1970s, they managed to turn it around, change the laws on what could be classified as light trucks versus autos and burn more crude than we could pump! They simply confirmed The Jevons Paradox: the faster you drill and produce, the faster it gets burned
Actually that's called supply and demand.
Don't forget about the NOVA specials on glaciers melting funded by the Koch Brothers. BOO!
Assume it really is happening, do we know it's a bad thing? Crop production and economic growth are far higher in warmer periods (globally) than during times of cold / mini ice ages. What of the consequences of stopping it (millions of dead kids in poor countries). Then add one more thing, as our population has increased in technology and prosperity, we've actually been having less and less impact on the environment. The market is taking us to a green economy without all the greenies: We once used timber for fuel - awful pollution, then coal, less bad, but still bad, then petroleum, and now we're transitioning to other sources namely nuclear, hopefully thorium will be the next step. So apart from killing off 3/4 of the population what other plans do you suggest other than what the market has empirically proven to provide?
Oh, and do you know what the largest source of greenhouse gas is? Vocanoes, by an order of magnitude or more, and their rate of production comes in fits and starts. Coorelation does not equal causation.
What tobacco company did you work for, prior to taking your current job as an apologist for the coal industry?
What government tax agency do you work for now and do you still beat your wife?
I did a stint at NOAA. I know stuff. You should really get that rash taken care of. Sheep contracted siphillis can be fatal.
I like riding my Harley Davidson when it's warm. I'm all for global warming. My new girlfriend is crazy hot . I just gotta get that vibrator thing for her seat and I will be set.
This is a question I have always had on this issue and been unable to find an answer for- assuming that the hypothesis that manmade CO2 is the cause, do their models account for the increased intake of CO2 through extended growing seasons in warmer climate, or do they not?
If anyone has a link CLEARLY showing that the models in use by the pro-AGW crowd account for the extended growing seasons resulting from a warmer climate, please put it up. No bullshit, a clear link to the methodolgy showing that this is accounted for.
I have been unable to find anything like this so far.
The IPCC tends to underscore the negative effects of global warming:
We have some concerns about the objectivity of the IPCC process, with some of its emissions scenarios and summary documentation apparently influenced by political considerations. There are significant doubts about some aspects of the IPCC's emissions scenario exercise, in particular, the high emissions scenarios. The Government should press the IPCC to change their approach. There are some positive aspects to global warming and these appear to have been played down in the IPCC reports; the Government should press the IPCC to reflect in a more balanced way the costs and benefits of climate change. The Government should press the IPCC for better estimates of the monetary costs of global warming damage and for explicit monetary comparisons between the costs of measures to control warming and their benefits. Since warming will continue, regardless of action now, due to the lengthy time lags.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/1...
Furthermore, if you read around the subject, it seems the IPCC's 'executive summaries' downplay the uncertainty expressed in the original scientific papers.
The models do not predict anything. They take measured CO2, then "force" the atmosphere to warm. Thus the term forcing function. The warming in the models is not a consequence of any physics in the model, only the ASSumption that rising CO2 levels warm the earth (no possibility that a warming earth increases CO2 for instance).
Do you just make shit up?
Typically if the Sun is the predominant forcing C02 will rise from natural causes... But C02 can be the main forcing, as it is now....
I doubt it. The primary consumer of CO2 is algae, and the amount of CO2 that algae consume is a function of water temperature (as water has reverse soluability of CO2). The colder the water, the more CO2 algae consume, and the same is true of the inverse.
Additionally, a large part of the world still practices slash and burn agriculture (for reasons unknown, stupidity perhaps?), so a longer growing season just means more biomass burned. So crops do not sequester carbon in much of the world.
Trees on the other hand, once fully grown are carbon neutral, because the breakdown of the detritus produces as much CO2 as the trees consume. Only new growth trees sequester carbon, which is why the best way to sequester carbon is to be continously growing trees to be used in long lasting furniture, i.e. hardwood, not the crappy pine that goes into chipboard.
It's a hoax.
It wasn't my fault.
The dog ate my homework.
and so on ...
Of course, you can always buy 'carbon credits' in the latest ponzinomic financial fraud scheme. Yeah, that'll fix it.
/random
Sorry that I am little late....Can we still play?
I'm a total pessimist about this mess. AGW is real, and it will run its course, given the maximum amount of mineral carbon we can dig or pump and burn.
Short of an extremely stiff and universal carbon tax, there will be no change to human behavior.
On the positive side, I think peak oil will give politicians some bragging rights. Much like they do in Cleveland when they brag about cleaning up the Cuyahoga River. They didn't do that much to clean it up, but when all the steel mills went out of business, it cleaned itself up.
There is some encouraging noise about a Carbon tax... I am very firm in my belief that Cap N' Trade is a scam....
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/16/519181/conservatives-outraged-carbon-tax/
I hope that "where there is smoke there is fire"....
The catch is that if you have a carbon tax, you phase out SS taxes....my take at least
Cap and trade is a scam, carbon tax is a scam. Only way I see out of this is alternatives. A number of my friends are at varying size private companies working on different alternative energy tech, I think there will be a singularity type moment. Some of the stuff is getting to be really good, could be like petroleum, all of a sudden no more sperm oil.
There's also so many new materials being developed, it's pretty incredible.
People will not change their ways until forced to (i.e. production collapses) or the alternative is easier / cheaper. I'm optimistic about green tech.
Is Antarctica part of the globe covered by global warming?
If you get to point to anecdotal evidence, then so does the other side.
Note that my point is anecdotes aren't evidence at all.
Tell me again which multi-national corporation sent you to China? Talking your book again I see.
What the FUCK are you blathering on about?
Did you do an internet search and confuse me with one of the dozen other tmosleys of note in the world?
No. You have stated many times you live in China and that you are from elsewhere. English is almost certainly your first language. Based upon your brand of English, you are probably from America or Canada. So you are a westerner who was sent to China by your employer, which is ironic because you deplore those who themselves do not employ. Your stated ideology is consistent with a large company that is developing a product in China and you/your employer benefit from most of the things you espouse. Am I wrong? So I'll ask again. Which multi-national company do you work for?
You are tremendously confused. I live and work in TEXAS for a small business that develops antimicrobial technologies.
Why on earth would my ANARCHO-CAPITALIST ideology be consistent with foreign product development, much less working for a big ol' corporation?
And what would ANY of that have to do with the issue at hand?
If you are going to use ad hominem, you could at least get it right, you fucking buffoon.
I realize now that I confused you with Dr. Engali on the China issue. My mistake. Now I have identified you. And does this sound familiar: "I don't like natgas, but I do like producers. If I played paper, I would probably own some. Technology is advancing in this arena. My own company is developing antimicrobial frack fluid to prevent infection by iron oxidizing bacteria. It's a whole new world of energy production."
As I suspected (knew), you are talking your fucking book. Douche. You are developing chemicals for fucking fracking, and complaining about global warming posts because it is your fucking book.
That was one application out of dozens, and that company has gone dark. Haven't heard a thing from them.
99% of our active development is in medical devices. Orthodontic devices are the only thing we have on the market. Look at our pubs. Bandages. Catheters. Intraocular lenses.
But hey, you pick and chose the data that confirms your biases. I'm sure you are right because YOU JUST SO SMART!!!
Just quoting you, el douche. Don't you hate it when your worst enemy is... you?
You remind me of an idiot who tried to insult me as being a "toothpaste researcher" after I talked about my work on ending tooth decay.
I spend two months developing that tech, and suddenly I'm a toothpaste researcher. I spend 1 month on frack fluids, and suddenly I'm an oil company shill. Never mind that I'm a RESEARCHER who is removed from business development of my company, much less the propoganda wing of the client of a client. I don't give a shit about that company, and more than our bid to develop antimicrobial front line hospital tents affects my position on the wars.
But hey, you are a little doggy, and you found a bone. Clutch it in your little maw and pretend that you are right and rightious and pius to your god. Maybe he will reward you by consuming you first.
Of course, I am making too much of the frack fluid research that you never admitted to being involved with before I revealed it. No big deal, right? Like LIBOR and fracking induced earthquakes (that you don't give a shit about because you made a buck) and global warming, no?
Probably because I forgot about it? I work like twelve projects at a time, and they cycle every three months or so.
I didn't make a buck off of fracking, and my company lost money, because the company we were co-developing with stopped talking to us for no apparent reason (very common in R&D, happens all the time).
If I made an anti-microbial toilet seat, I guess I would be a shill for the sewage industry, and any suggestions to eat more fiber would clearly be suspect.
Whenever do you have the time to disprove global warming, corporate shill?
I once did a project where I tried to prevent toxic shock syndrome by making anti-microbial tampons, I must be a feminist shill!
No, just a corporate shill.
Yes, I clearly work for Tampex, and thus support all feminst issues.
And in your mind that would be the equivalent of working for Stalin.
Huh? I thought I was a corporate shill? Now I'm a Communist shill?
You're all over the map, Mr. Wizard.
That tampon analogy clearly hit a nerve!
I was going to suggest it's LTER's 'time of the month'... but having read her posts over the space of many months, it seems every day is dysmenorrhea day.
So THAT'S the silver connection!?
Our technology is a competing one with silver. If I were talking my book there, I would be a silver bear.
LetThenEatRand, Yes indeed! The blame the sun crowd has been very active in the denial community for a long time. What bloody fools, the sun has been at a rare minimum for a number of years and it is only now returning to a more normal output. This means the warming we saw the last decade is despite a cooler sun not because of a warmer sun. Well now the sun is back to normal and the heat is really on.
Seriously, the deniers are now a form of light entertainment. Their desperate efforts become more meaningless every day and are now simply funny.
When we passed 400PPM CO2 this spring, it really was game over. China has blown America away in the race to produce greenhouse gases. The rate of CO2 increase is now in a steep upward curve. Massive new methane releases have been confirmed by the very anti global warming Russian academy of science in the Siberian arctic. Polar ice melted at it's fastest rate ever this June. The warm waters in the antartic are undercutting the big ice shelves. Greenland is in full scale meltdown. Glaciers are melting across the globe except for some isolated cases. Heat records surpass cold records by 2-1, then 8-1, then 10-1 and now in many place 20-1. A stable climate produces a 1-1 ratio.
Still denial is very popular and it is pathetic at this point. The deniers have grown a lot quieter lately. In a decade they will be silent. Not because liberals have shut them up, but because they will be too busy dealing with climate related turmoil to spend their time preaching anti science and claiming climate change is a hoax.
What the fuck are you talking about? You are majorly factually wrong here. The Sun is coming out of a period of low SUNSPOTS, which correlates with an INCREASE in solar output, and effect that correlates with a rise in temperature on planets other than Earth. Even AGW theory takes this into account!
You need to stop being a good little idea soldier and start thinking for yourself, wherever that leads you.
tmosley. Where did you hear the sun has NOT been in a rare solar minimum the last few years? SImply google solar output and you will be able to find the data on solar out put.
The sun has now returned to normal output from a low period. I bet if you take five minutes to research it you will find I am correct.
If you don't like facts, I suggest you don't blame me.
What is an idea soldier? Is that how people talk now a days? It seems a simple minded way to discuss solar output.
There a re a lot of moving parts and a lot of long cycles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Ice ages have been coming and going with regularity since way before anthropogenic factors could have been an input. Human civilization began as the last ice age ended ~11k years ago. We may even be overdue for the next one.
"Global warming", anthropogenic or not may be a net positive, a blip, a non-event or a net-negative in the near term and a net-positive farther out. No one knows. Really.
If anthropogenic global warming delays the next ice age a few hundred years, personally I'm cool with that but that's just me.
Mars warming got em all screwed up...so the answer has to be putting men on Mars ASAP.
Maybe you could explain exactly what is going on in Mars...
Please show the data to back your claim and under what conditions....
But since you are full of shit, we won't be holding our breath...
Are you saying it is not Flak?
Admittedly, this isn't from one of your favorite trolling places (skeptical science) so I hope a 2005 observation from NASA will do...
"And for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress."
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html
The Martians aren't holding their breath either it would seem...lol.
From your link:
If you were really interested in learning what was going on Mars you would learn that atmosphereic dust iand Albedo changes are the principal driving force:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7136/abs/nature05718.html
Again, you are shown to be a blowhard.....
I see, so you're thinkin you guys really can have it both ways because you think everyone alive today has an even shorter memory than you collective asshats.
On the one hand (not long ago) it was thought a thermo nuclear exchange would throw so much dust up into the atmosphere that survivors would face a "nuclear winter" afterwards and crop failures for generations due to the lack of warming sun reachiing the earths surface...yet here...on Mars, dust does the exact opposite...it traps heat...Mount St Helens known cooling effect notwithstanding.
Is that the "new scientific" consensus?...lol.
If I hear the "scientific community" exclaim just one more time "this changes everything we thought we knew" I'm gonna puke in your shoe Flak.
You are the blowhard here schlickmeister.
My fuck are you that thick?
Why don;t you read the fucking paper to learn how Martian dust storms change the albedo of the planet... Of do you trust Rush and his ilk to do your thinking for you?
You are two faced lieing weasel...
Here:
Why don't you compare that to Nuclear Winter....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter
Edit: And just in case you still don;t get it:
The 1977 reading was the cold one when the dust storm acted like a "nuclear winter", now the dust has settled so to speak....
If you fuckheads could only take half as much time learning the basics of climate science as you did denying it through semantics, fraud and distortion.....
I didn't say it wasn't in a minimum, I said that the minimum refered to sunspots (true), which was inversely correlated with energy output (false upon further reading, the correlation is positive), which was correlated with rising temperatures on planets other than Earth.
However, the FACT is that temperatures on planets other than earth are rising, or at least have risen recently. The only variable I can see is solar output.
Disclaimer: you work in the fracking industry with the likes of Haliburton.
Doggy with a bone is a liar with a boner now.
truth hurts asshole.
No, it doesn't. Neither do your idiotic inferences. They are just annoying.
Where do you work? Give me a comprehensive client list for your company and for all your client's clients so I can claim that you are a shill any time any of those industries are being talked about.
I own my own business. Sleuth me out, brainiac.
Awww, you don't want to play on an even playing field? Dish it out but can't take it?
Weak and stupid, so you have to criticize others to make yourself feel better?
Link to where you revealed that you research for fracking.
You posted the quote yourself. I revealed it Turd's public forum long ago: http://www.tfmetalsreport.com/forum/natural-gas/408
Do you think you are the first person to go creepy crawling through my post history looking for dirt on me? Did I deny doing the work? No? Did I give an update, and clarify the main thrust of my research (medical applications)? Yes.
But because one of the hundreds of things that I have worked on had an application in a given industry makes me a shill for that industry. God damn, I shill for a lot of industries man. I'm a military shill, a feminist shill, a orthodontic shill, a catheter shill, an aquarium shill, a plastics shill, a paint shill, a bandage shill, a cooler shill, an orthopedic implant shill, a craniofacial implant shill, a clean water shill, a gas station fuel tank liner shill, and a shill for hundreds of other things that I have worked on during my career.
Damn, why aren't all these industries paying me to shill for them?
When you spend your days developing products for multi-national corporations and being paid by them, you lose a bit of credibility claiming to be the anti-corporate libertarian.
You're right. No medical products for anyone! You aren't a hypocrite for using corporate supplied internets to criticize them either. No, that logic only goes one way.
Also, I wonder if you realize that you goalseeked your conclusion that I was a corporate shill. You had a theory that could equally expalin tmosley as an employee of a multinational firm in China as it could tmosley as an employee of a small research company in Texas.
It's like taking a piece of paper and writing "and therefore tmosley is a corporate shill." at the bottom and then filling the top in with whatever comes to hand. The fact is almost everyone works for corporations directly or indirectly, and those that don't certainly use something made by a corporation. As such, you are able to take any set of possible circumstances and call the other person a hypocrite. How convenient.
Also note that this is the same procedure used by religious fanatics since the beginning of time.
Ha. Medical products. For fracking! Nice. Try.
Are you part of a death panel? Have you suggested that someone else is?
Fuck you are stupid. Your idea of 'thinking for yourself' is to regurgitate the latest bits of AGW-denialist bullshit picked up from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.
You need to to stop being a good little Koch footsoldier and get yourself aquainted with the real facts.
Really? I don't even have a TV, and the only radio I listen to is NPR.
But you are in an ideological war, and ideas are soldiers. You must defend those ideas that are "on your side" even if they are absurd and counterfactual, and you wind up looking like a bufoon and discrediting your entire thesis by doing so.
An ideological war? Really, like defending the practice of fracking which pays your salary?
Jesus Christ, you are just going to use that bit of ad hominem for the rest of your life, aren't you?
Never got paid from fracking. Only got paid from ending tooth decay. "But hey, fuck that, let's talk about one of your dozens of clients that I happen to oppose ideologically".
You are a corporate shill. I don't need to make any point at all beyond that.
Yes, the anarcho-capitalist who is for the destruction of the corporate form is a corporate shill.
The anarcho-capitalist is accepting paychecks for developing fracking fluid for giant corporations. Oui? Hypocritical self-interested narcissist douche.
Anarcho capitalists aren't allowed to live, according to Mr. Wizard here.
Yes, accept paychecks from Haliburton or die. But you only fracked because she wanted it.
Where did I accept a paycheck from Haliburton?
I only remember entering into a codevelopment agreement with a small company that produces frack fluids, and who stopped responding to emails a long time ago. Pretty sure they never paid for anything.
Halliburton pays well. What's the problem? You one of those OWS smelly hippies?
Just calling out a hypocrite shill. Making money is fine. Posting on ZH and claiming to be objective when you are a corporate shill is not fine.
I am proud to be a well paid corporate shill and part time sock puppet for the US Air Force. And, I know that this "man-made" global warming stuff is total BS. Simply look at the massive temperature fluctuations duirg the last 600 million years and see that during the last 10,000 have been relatively calm. This has allowed huans to breed like cockroaches and believe they control the world. Some day there will be another supervolcanic eruption, asteroid/commet/meteor strike, serious climatic change then the humans will wonder how they ever thought they could change the world's climate. People argue about the climate/weather as if they understand it, can model and predict it, and give themselves credit for some piddly 2 degree average change. Foooey!
So you work for us taxpayers, then? I'll bet you have an attitude about that. Go fetch.
Just calling out a hypocrite shill. Making money is fine. Posting on ZH and claiming to be objective when you are a corporate shill is not fine.
LTER, I've been following this thread from the beginning, and you are one of the most disgusting sophists I have ever seen here.
I suggest you read M Peck Scott's People of the Lie and have a good think about what you are.
Hey Plump - Why can't all of you libtards at least get the story line straight? Even on this thread you guys can't decide wether to call it global warming or climate change. I guess you guys were all together (calling it global warming) until the last two years when South America has experienced its coldest winters ever. Please, for the sake of sanity,give up the idea that climate stats end at the U.S border.
Oh, goodie... a lippy one...
Hey, it was the Bush Adminstration that recruited Frank Luntz to see if Climate Change, which sounded less dangerous, was easier to accept than the scientific term "Global Warming"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz
Oh he also admitted on Colbert....
Do you still want to play?
Please explain the results of the following published paper:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022
Here is a laymans description:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html
Tell me where they went wrong, or just shut the fuck up....
It's like this, Flack - When you are out of your area (neither of us are climate experts) you have to use your head. That means logic. If it is all about you choosing your experts, and I choose mine (Head of climatology at MIT) then nobody wins. My point is until there is more concensus we are just having a meaningless argument - unless you are telling me you know more than one who heads the subject at MIT. Trust me, as you age, you will figure this out . I know you think you are an expert - but if you are following the lead of a Bush recruit, nuff said!
I'll put my credentials against anyone who happens by the Hedge to discuss climate science...
And one MIT guy dont mean shit in the big picture..., perchance you are thinking of Dr. Lindzen. Well you do know he has accepted coal money and tobacco money to be an "expert" witness. He is hardly a paragon of integrity... To me, that is a tell and you got to do better than one cranky old guy whose palms have been greased...
You type like a blowhard trying to weasel out...
This is Fight Club... Bring something real or STFU....
Bring something real ? Like bragging about " my credentials " and quoting someone else's paper ? Gawd - you are a kick ! And then dragging the world's foremost authority thru the mud. Nice little world you live in. Tell ya what - I'll produce "a published paper" by Ben Bernanke on how he would have handled the Great Depression( the first one, not this one). You will be just as impressed as I was with you.
You've been bitch slapped and now you are blubbering....
Face it, you are outta your league....
30 years is too short a time period to extrapolate a "global warming" trend. We already know the climate varies significantly and that trends can last centuries then suddenly reverse. viz. vinyards grew in England during the Midieval Warm Period then the climate changed and the Thames froze over every year, a phenomenon previously unknown. Then in the late 19th century the climate swung back to normal. The climate change since then has been within the normal range of the last 1000 years.
Yep.. could you explain what the drivng forces were when the Thames was freezing "every year"? Hint: google Meander Minimum....
Could you also elaborate on C02 levels being higher now than at any point in the history of H. Sapiens?
BTW, I strongly suggest you read the following, pay special attention to the final table:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
There will be a quiz...
Good lord Flakmeister, still touting the CO2 causes global warming, loot the masses, tax the air we exhale fraud. You know and I know that CO2 is a trace gas having little to NO effect on global temperature change, much less man made CO2. Read the ice core data....CO2 always follows global warming by hundreds of years.
Just goes to show how one can be highly literate and show some above average intelligence in some areas, yet be as dumb as fence post in others.
Yeah...tell me all about it...
Could you remind us about what fraction of the atmosphere is GHG? Could you remind us of how H20 vapor has changed over the past 100 years? And finally, could you remind us what the global temperature would be in the absence of water vapor and C02??
So given the range of C02 and termperature that you see in the ice cores, how do you explain a change in temperarature that would drive C02 to the current levels? Where is the evidence for this massive temperature rise? Hey, its your hypothesis, you better make it consistent with all the data....
I also suggest you get up to speed and read the following:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/skakun-co2-temp-lag.html
The data I have points to common sense, not a contrived uncertain analysis of obscure anomolies portrayed as tainted data analysis. Good lord man, your hero's in this field have all been debunked. Here is a taste...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc&feature=fvwrel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIQ70is-RPM
GRUNT,
So what you are saying, "I'm right but I can't prove it, and I better smear anything that I don't understand"...
Real science is not done via Youtube...
You have to do better than that...
Here is one more recent case and point Fm...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/17/new-paper-blames-about-half-of-glo...
Presentation and Abstract PDF is in the article for more in depth analysis.
The paper you present is a submission to conference and has not been peer reviewed yet... I'll quote a 3rd party....
So WUWT got that wrong and lets wait to see what the EGU has to say about the merits of the paper....
Lol...Peer reviewed. Do you really think in this day and age, as it relates to the ACO2 causing global warming, loot the masses fraud that "peer reviewed" means anything.
The science has been politicized. One would have to be a complete idiot to believe that ACO2 does any significant changes to atmospheric temperature.
Fm, I believe you want to believe in the IDEA that ACO2 changes temperature, but like a battered wife getting her ass kicked over and over again, continually comes back believing the same premise in the IDEA she will not get the shit kicked out of her is greater than her own reality.
Your believing a lie Fm. You have been sold a bill of goods, by the minds of truly evil men!
You might even be thicker than Low Profile, if that is possible...
Is that the extent of your argument against AGW?
What part of C02 being since ~1850 the largest average radiative forcing that fail to grasp?
At least try to read this....
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
here is an explanation of why you fools are wrong -
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-tem...
Now shut the fuck up.
Oh... got me shaking in my boots...
Please remind how humans do in 120 degree heat...
Buddy, what the Earth did when we were not around has nothing to do with the current situtation,,,,
Finally, you place a lot of faith in those measurements, good, because those measurement are lot harder and trickier than the ones that say C02 is the highest since H. Sapiens walked the planet. And you do know that we are only 1/4 of the way there given the C02 that;s already baked into the cake....
PS The plots have been deliberately mislabeled, find out the most recent calibrated date for the GISP2 data, hint, it aint 2000...
http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/
"libtard"? Are you a child, or did you stumble in here from the Business Insider comments section?
I say we attack it (Sun). But lets wait for night time when it's asleep.
Do you refuse to accept the possibility of global warming occurring which is not man-made?
No. I accept the possibility that most scientists are wrong. It would not be the first time. However, given the high probability they are right, it makes sense to take action in response even knowing they could be wrong. Do you concede the possibility that thousands of scientists are correct?
I concede the possibility that thousands of "scientists" and administrators who get their funding through government in one form or another are corrupt.
Do you?
I already said yes. Perhaps thousands of scientists are all lying because they want grants. Do you concede that thousands of scientists may be correct?
The ones saying its complete bullshit?...why yes, I do.
This is what it boils down to when you back AGW into a corner. No one wants dirty water, land or dirty air. But this is over the top...its an extension of enviromentalism taken to its inth degree for "capitalist" profit of so-called greens and their handlers...you know it and I know it.
If you want wider public acceptance drop the CO2 garbage...water vapor is the largest "greenhouse gas" and there isn't a damned thing you can do about that on a "water world".
Seeya
Yes. It is 100% certain that all scientists lie. Great logic, winker. ;-(
Everybody lies. Scientists included. Lots of noise about lies in peer reviewed journals these days, for people who keep up with such things.
Don't pretend that scientists are gods. If they stray from the methods of rationality, they are just as fallable as anyone else.
"Everybody lies. Scientists included."
Finally, some truth from your self-interested narcissistic keyboard.
You are describing yourself more than me, friendo.
Again, I quoted you.
You are a retard, in addition to being narcissistic and self centered, I see.
Oh no, tmosley called me out as a retard! What shall I do to retort?! Such brilliance. Such scientific merit. Such ....
EatRand, I suspect you come from the CO2 is a pollutant tribe, or more aptly called the ACO2, tax the air we exhale, loot the masses FRAUD. Both you and Flakemaster appear to be 2 peas from the same pod.
Both constipated with the same delusional idea of Peak Oil, and ACO2 will annhilate the living.
You will frack and exhale and you will like it bitchez!
You know that you can get facial Depends for the type of verbal diarrhea you seem to be suffering from...
You really should learn that strawmen are not a good arguing technique....
Show me the science. All I ever see from the warmist side are sarcasm, hand waving, and fakery.
please, like you would even begin to understand the evidence.
"You are too stupid to understand the words the Oracle speaks. Give us old priests carnal access to all your pretty virgins and young boys, and we will make it all better."
Is that in the fracking code book?
http://realclimate.org/
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/pdf/ngeo1480.pdf
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2012/6
, etc. etc. etc.
All I have seen from the denialist camp is handwaving and bullshit.
Must bring you comfort believing the lie asswipe! It's the only rational explanation I can think of for those brainwashed souls state of believing that the air we exhale will kill us.
water is the source of life but too much of that can kill you too.
Diogenes...
if you are serious, here is a very complete review of the history of Global Warming
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
It will tell you the things they got right and wrong and when and how they figure stuff out...
And [now] they accept that there is climate change
Really, you think anybody ever denied Ice Ages? Or denied that the current period is not an Ice Age?
Nobody denied that things warm and cool, just that any current change is not out of the historical norms of the last several thousand years, either for speed or size of change. The CRU memos note that they had to get rid of the medieval optimum, because it showed both warmer temperatures and similar rates of change to today. If the Medieval Optimum is in the record, today's weather/climate is nothing out of the ordinary.
Listen to yourself complain about people denying global warming ideas and then deny that another idea about what is causing current heat records is somehow not valid.
Do you enjoy taking it up the ass while saying no to veiny cocks at the same time?
The whole argument was that WE weren't the cause of it.. or do you just want to conveniently throw that out as an obstacle to your argument?
Decoupling!
Not only does Bernanke have control of the printing press, but also the HAARP apparatus!!! WE"RE DOOMED!!!!!!
A worst-in-a-generation drought from Indiana to Arkansas to California is damaging crops and rural economies and threatening to drive food prices to record levels.
http://www.altmediapost.com/articles/the-farmer-the-merchant-and-food-st...
Oh, so now it is only worst-in-a-generation.
I feel better.
University of Nebraska claims record drought in the USA? Not so fast…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/05/uuniversity-of-nebraska-claims-rec...
Never did like to Huskers .....
Unfortunately politics, and cronyism has taken science hostage. Hopefully we'll get it back soon.
"worst on record" drought sounds bad until you realize the records used in the study go back only 12 years! Check the link above.
Here are some other links to the same site that put the recent heat wave in perspective:
The folly of blaming the Eastern U.S. heat wave on global warming
Why the U.S East Coast heatwave was not unusual nor the number of record temperatures unprecedented.
‘Extreme weather is an integral part of the Earth’s climate’
Texas Tall Tales and Global Warming
Tornado Season Statistics Update – ‘remarkably quiet’
WUWT.... We Use Wishful Thinking or better yet, WTFUWT....
Here are the facts:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/regional_monitoring/rpd07drs.gif
BTW, there was no link above to click....
I'm still confused...is a drought weather related or climate related?
We just got over a drought down here in Fla...every damned road around here is washed out...but I'm sure a carbon tax would have prevented both...lol.
It is certainly more likely we will have higher temperatures with lower humidity.
Cue the moonbats in...3...2...1...time for a climate convention in Cancun!!!
Cue the ideological no one goin' to tell me to stop burning fossil fuels when it's convenient to me and I will never believe that puny man can harm the environment (nukes notwithstanding) no matter what crowd in.... Oops, missed it.
You pounding on that keyboard is burning "fossil fuels" spud...for shame...you're killing the planet!!!...lol.
Have you ever thought of the power delegated to server farms so you can type? Look at your laptop...is it plastic or wood?...the cord going down to the socket...linen or plastic? Does your electricity (from that socket) come from a nuke plant or "fossil fuels"?
Why are you destroying the planet by talking to me?
Yes, spend all your time criticizing individuals rather than the system that has put a dead halt to LFTR development.
You mean individuals who work in the industry that promotes and supports fracking. Such as yourself? You fucking hypocrite who just talks his own fucking book.
"Talking my own book" would be me talking all day about biofilms and the diseases they cause.
But one client that hasn't communicated with the company I work for in a year does something you don't like, and it invalidates everything I have to say on every subject in existance. Ad hominem in extremis.
Go fuck yourself.
No, go fuck yourself, corporate shill. Funny how someone who is against our system works within it and profits from it.
I thought you were against the system as it is too? You also make money, you fucking hypocrite.