Hottest Spring On Record Globally 2014

[CharlesDavenport]

Cue Rush Limbaugh to tell you and the rest of the conservative inbreds that the whole water mixing thing is just something scientists made up recently, like the 'polar vortex'. Yeah just made it up when Al Gore gives the order.

Here's a new one just like the Polar Vortex.....1902 new. Ekman Transport.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekman_transport

'Water, fire, air, and dirt. ******* Ekman transport how does it work?'

Again a visual analog for the collective Steeler Nation IQ

You haven't explained the seemingly conflicting theories. Then you can explain how that cold water rising magically turns into record ice in the midst of global warming.

 

[PoloMalo43]

View attachment 280

Well you see, I go by what I see - not by what I am told. If there is more ice than last year then I think it is getting colder. Get it?

Do you see this?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/increasing-Antarctic-Southern-sea-ice-intermediate.htm

If the Southern Ocean is warming, why is sea ice increasing? There are several contributing factors. One is the drop in ozone levels over Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole has caused cooling in the stratosphere (Gillet 2003). A side-effect is a strengthening of the cyclonic winds that circle the Antarctic continent (Thompson 2002). The wind pushes sea ice around, creating areas of open water known as polynyas. More polynyas leads to increased sea ice production (Turner 2009).

Another contributor is changes in ocean circulation. The Southern Ocean consists of a layer of cold water near the surface and a layer of warmer water below. Water from the warmer layer rises up to the surface, melting sea ice. However, as air temperatures warm, the amount of rain and snowfall also increases. This freshens the surface waters, leading to a surface layer less dense than the saltier, warmer water below. The layers become more stratified and mix less. Less heat is transported upwards from the deeper, warmer layer. Hence less sea ice is melted (Zhang 2007).

Antarctic sea ice is complex and counter-intuitive. Despite warming waters, complicated factors unique to the Antarctic region have combined to increase sea ice production. The simplistic interpretation that it's caused by cooling is false.

Increase in Antarctic sea ice caused by AGW was predicted here-->http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm9101.pdf

More that 20 years ago............. predicted with one of those model thingys that don't work.................................

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Do you see this?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/increasing-Antarctic-Southern-sea-ice-intermediate.htm

If the Southern Ocean is warming, why is sea ice increasing? There are several contributing factors. One is the drop in ozone levels over Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole has caused cooling in the stratosphere (Gillet 2003). A side-effect is a strengthening of the cyclonic winds that circle the Antarctic continent (Thompson 2002). The wind pushes sea ice around, creating areas of open water known as polynyas. More polynyas leads to increased sea ice production (Turner 2009).

Another contributor is changes in ocean circulation. The Southern Ocean consists of a layer of cold water near the surface and a layer of warmer water below. Water from the warmer layer rises up to the surface, melting sea ice. However, as air temperatures warm, the amount of rain and snowfall also increases. This freshens the surface waters, leading to a surface layer less dense than the saltier, warmer water below. The layers become more stratified and mix less. Less heat is transported upwards from the deeper, warmer layer. Hence less sea ice is melted (Zhang 2007).

Antarctic sea ice is complex and counter-intuitive. Despite warming waters, complicated factors unique to the Antarctic region have combined to increase sea ice production. The simplistic interpretation that it's caused by cooling is false.

Increase in Antarctic sea ice caused by AGW was predicted here-->http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm9101.pdf

More that 20 years ago............. predicted with one of those model thingys that don't work.................................

LOL. Yes, I would say that increasing Arctic and Antarctic ice would be counterintuitive to global warming. Where would you all be without all these "counterintuitive" ocean effects?

 

[PoloMalo43]

and I'll sub in my answer


**** off you chicken-little piece of chickenshits


My people can out-gun your puny posse of suburbanites

We're coming to getcha!



Can I get an Amen?

Why don't you shoot up at the sky Klinger? Fill dat Co2 fullem buckshot..thatll take care dat rascal.

 

[hamster]

LOL. Yes, I would say that increasing Arctic and Antarctic ice would be counterintuitive to global warming. Where would you all be without all these "counterintuitive" ocean effects?

Lol. Counterintuitive now means, the evidence and common sense may not support it, but I'm still right and you're wrong.

 

[PoloMalo43]

LOL. Yes, I would say that increasing Arctic and Antarctic ice would be counterintuitive to global warming. Where would you all be without all these "counterintuitive" ocean effects?

Arctic sea ice is DECREASING! There is a difference between surface area and volume. Read carefully when you go on Watts site that sheister speaks with a forked tongue.

 

[PoloMalo43]

Lol. Counterintuitive now means, the evidence and common sense may not support it, but I'm still right and you're wrong.

Intuitiveness and common sense are not the best mental attributes for understanding physics.

 

[Spike]

hey!, I remember those "scientists"



Global warming scientists forced to admit defeat... because of too much ice: Stranded Antarctic ship's crew will be rescued by helicopter

•Chris Turney, a climate scientist and leader of the expedition, was going to document 'environmental changes' at the pole
•In an interview he said he expected melting ice to play a part in expedition
•MV Akademik Schokalskiy still stuck among thick ice sheet 1,500 nautical miles south of Hobart, the Tasmanian capital

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2531159/Antarctic-crew-build-ice-helipad-help-rescuers.html

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Arctic sea ice is DECREASING! There is a difference between surface area and volume. Read carefully when you go on Watts site that sheister speaks with a forked tongue.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/05/cryosat-shows-arctic-sea-ice-volume-up-50-from-last-year/

So you think volume is less important than surface area? It definitely makes sense that you would think that - at a number of levels. You claim to understand physics. There's more ice.

 

[PoloMalo43]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/05/cryosat-shows-arctic-sea-ice-volume-up-50-from-last-year/

So you think volume is less important than surface area? It definitely makes sense that you would think that - at a number of levels. You claim to understand physics. There's more ice.

And you don't understand that it's about trends, for the 1,000th time. It's like trying to get it across to 1st graders.

I WAS TALKING ABOUT VOLUME!

 

[Roy92040]

I don't know about the spring in the artic but in my part of the world Oregon it got to 109 on Tuesday.

 

[PoloMalo43]

Again, Polo, answer the question:

What is incorrect about the DATA showing that 50% of the "increased" temperature in the United States was the product of manipulation of the actual data? Here is the article:

https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/r-367.pdf

Further, you ignore the fatal flaw in the AGW panic-manic predictions: Their models are wrong.

The entire field is predicated on predictive models - "such-and-such level of CO2 emissions will cause such-and-such temperature increase." So what the hell weight do we give a field that predicts 4 to 6 degrees C warming, where the models making that prediction are just WRONG? And why in the hell should we spend billions - trillions - of dollars in energy production, transportation, food production, etc. to stem AGW per the models, when the models are overpredicting warming to a significant extent?

Look, CO2 emissions cause warming. That is not a debate.

The issue is, and always has been, "How much warming over the next 25, 50 and 100 years?" If the warming caused by man-made CO2 emissions is 1 degree C over the next 100 years, are you suggesting that is the same as a temperature increase of 6 degrees C over the same time, and for the same reason? And that measures to address the potential warming should be identical?

Good God, man, I hope not.

Therefore, when the data show the actual temperature increase to be 1.5 degrees C per century (0.15 per decade per the data), then maybe you need to re-think your panic attacks about AGW.

Finally, how many people are you willing to kill to "prevent" AGW? Give me a number - answer the question. Don't tap dance, and evade, and skirt the issue - just damn well answer it.

Because only a complete moron - a blithering idiot of the first order - suggests that implementing massive changes in energy production, food production, and transportation will cost zero lives. The money spent on such changes alone would have fed millions.

So answer the question - how many are you willing to kill to "prevent" AGW??

Why do you keep linking to that paper? Why are you not able to comprehend that it’s not worthy of a homeless, toilet paperless crack head, wiping his *** with it?

Where did you get that graph from, give me a link.

Here is the explanation of why the Watts paper is incorrect in its assertion and yours concerning the data adjustments .

http://steelernation.com/showthread.php?566-Hottest-Spring-On-Record-Globally-2014/page9

In an unpublished paper, Watts et al. raise new questions about the adjustments applied to the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) station data (which also form part of the GHCN global dataset). Ultimately the paper concludes "that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled." However, this conclusion is not supported by the analysis in the paper itself. Here we offer preliminary constructive criticism, noting some issues we have identified with the paper in its current form, which we suggest the authors address prior to submittal to a journal. As it currently stands, the issues we discuss below appear to entirely compromise the conclusions of the paper.


Nothing but assinine straw man arguments on your part from here on.

'The entire field is predicated on models'......uh NO! We've been over this before. Regardless the models are more than accurate enough.

"Look, CO2 emissions cause warming." That is not a debate" Finally he had no choice but to admit it since his hero John Christy believes in AGW. There might be hope after all.

For those who would like to keep arguing this point after Steeltime admits it, here you go:

http://www.pawalaw.com/assets/docs/pavley_christy_cross.pdf

That link is to a pdf of the cross examination of Christy during a trial concerning car companies and regulations to reduce emissions. On page 56 line 12 during cross Christy admits CO2 emissions cause warming.......welcome to a basic physics discovery made at the end of the 19th century John Christy, hopefully your followers will remove their heads from......enough said.

As for your assertion that 1 degree C is no biggie...we don't know that. The 2C argument was put forth by an economist and it has lingered on even though the models and paleo data show that climate sensitivity can be anywhere from 2C to 4.5C.

In other words there have been historically bad events for life on earth(including extinction) occurring through that range.
If you want to gamble that our fate lies in the high range..then you truly are a fool.

We are at .8C warming so far over a century, but that was an increase that rose at a slow rate mainly in the west. Now we have a high rate of emission growth world wide, and the possibility for the introduction of non-linear positive feedbacks at any time.

How many am I willing to kill?

Let's see how many have died so far. This is just with the 'tip' of the climate change iceberg revealing itself to us at this point.

Currently it causes about 150,000 deaths a year http://www.who.int/heli/risks/climate/climatechange/en/

By 2050 heat related deaths in Enngland alone will go up 257% http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/04/heat-related-deaths-climate-change

Remember the heat wave in Europe in 2005 or 03? that killed 70,000

Of course you are right if we were to stop all fossil fuel activity immediately millions would die, if we ignore the problem as you want then billions will die, and the human species might cease to exist.

Either way there is going to be a die off. The planet just can not sustain the amount of humans we bring into it every day.

Pick your poison.

Sorry. I did finally remember to call your ride to come get you though.

 

[CoolieMan]

your tendency to post stupid ******* videos that have nothing to do with any discussion is really getting annoying.....

 

[PoloMalo43]

your tendency to post stupid ******* videos that have nothing to do with any discussion is really getting annoying.....

I'm an artist that's what you don't get. The videos free me up to be moronical like most of the other posters on here.

Enjoy.....................

 

[Steeltime]

Elfie ... you changed your name to try and start anew, and distance yourself from your prior embarrassments.

You can't escape your (see, possessive, so this is the correct usage) past, Elfie. Here is your viewpoint in any discussion on this forum:

 

[CharlesDavenport]

And you don't understand that it's about trends, for the 1,000th time. It's like trying to get it across to 1st graders.

I WAS TALKING ABOUT VOLUME!

I wish you clowns would pick a trend period and stick with it. You're the idiots who officially declared a pause in global warming for the last 15 years.

 

[PoloMalo43]

Elfie ... you changed your name to try and start anew, and distance yourself from your prior embarrassments.

You can't escape your (see, possessive, so this is the correct usage) past, Elfie. Here is your viewpoint in any discussion on this forum:

Good answer, call me Elfie and show a guy pretending to punch a camera.

I guess your admission on Christy left you so butthurt that's all you can manage. I Understand.

 

[Stewey]

Again a visual analog for the collective Steeler Nation IQ

I could imagine the substantial jump in IQ points if you left the Nation.

 

[madinsomniac]

I could imagine the substantial jump in IQ points if you left the Nation.

Based on his/her interactions here Id say Palo displays the traits of someone with around a 120 to 135 ish IQ. There are some good pieces about personality traits linked to Iq published recently. There are also other factors too; people who take a singular liberal socialist view tend to be on the higher or very low side of the IQ charts. The ones on the lower side are less likely to be atheists. The fanatic need to drive home his/her side and belittle others displays a superiority complex that fits well with that assessment. Based on my interaction with people of very high IQ, id say His/her intelligence is not quite on the very high end, They tend to a bit more egocentric and honestly typically have far greater mental and social issues. in any case IQ isn't nearly as important as people make it out to be. If I had realized that back in grade school id be far better off in life right now. People with the highest Iqs tend to be utter failures at life, just like people with straight A averages even in college, tend to have far lower success rates in life than C or B students. Placing too high a value on academia is as bad as overrating the benefits of general intellect.

 

[Confluence]

Based on his/her interactions here Id say Palo displays the traits of someone with around a 120 to 135 ish IQ. There are some good pieces about personality traits linked to Iq published recently. There are also other factors too; people who take a singular liberal socialist view tend to be on the higher or very low side of the IQ charts. The ones on the lower side are less likely to be atheists. The fanatic need to drive home his/her side and belittle others displays a superiority complex that fits well with that assessment. Based on my interaction with people of very high IQ, id say His/her intelligence is not quite on the very high end, They tend to a bit more egocentric and honestly typically have far greater mental and social issues. in any case IQ isn't nearly as important as people make it out to be. If I had realized that back in grade school id be far better off in life right now. People with the highest Iqs tend to be utter failures at life, just like people with straight A averages even in college, tend to have far lower success rates in life than C or B students. Placing too high a value on academia is as bad as overrating the benefits of general intellect.

I suppose there exists some peer-reveiwed circle-jerk papers that support your common sense?

 

[madinsomniac]

I suppose there exists some peer-reveiwed circle-jerk papers that support your common sense?

There are, but im not going to go dig them up and post them so basically no one can read them. They can be found if you are really interested... a good one was in the Scientific American a few months back IIRC... If it makes you feel better I am also not going to post any clown cars or other imbecilic stuff that kills bandwidth for no better reason than to focus attention on myself either.

 

[Steeltime]

'Water, fire, air, and dirt. ******* Ekman transport how does it work?'

Again a visual analog for the collective Steeler Nation IQ

The manner in which magnetism, gravity, the strong force, and the weak force (the four fundamental forces) transmit their respective forces has been the subject of scientific investigation for decades.

Physicists propose that magnetic and gravitational forces are transmitted by actual particles, via "photons" and "gravitrons," respectively. The theories of force transmission for magnetism and gravity are still developing, and no physicists claims "the science is settled" regarding force transmission for gravity and magnetism. You will like this reference source - it has pictures to help explain the concepts to you:

http://www.physicsmasterclasses.org/exercises/keyhole/en/theory/main-6.html

Here is a diagram of the attempt at a "unified theory" for strong force, weak force, magnetism and gravity, but it remains just a theory. Testing to data can neither confirm nor deny this approach:

The point is this: You style yourself as a genius, mock members of Steeler Nation by suggesting that they do not understand transmission of magnetic force, imply that you know how magnetic force is transmitted and only an idiot would not know that theory, when in truth the method by which magnets transmit magnetic force (a messenger exchange particle known as a "photon") is not "settled science," is still being investigated by scientists vastly more intelligent than you, and no scientist claims to "know" how magnetic force is transmitted.

Therefore, your mocking tone when referring to magnetism - and your pompous suggestion that you "know all about magnetic force and only an idiot would fail to know" - shows yet again your profound lack of knowledge. The difficulty that others face is that you are too ignorant to realize how dumb you are. Given your limited intellect, let me help you with a picture:

Elfiemolo offers her genius

In conclusion, your treatment in this discussion:

 

[PoloMalo43]

Based on his/her interactions here Id say Palo displays the traits of someone with around a 120 to 135 ish IQ. There are some good pieces about personality traits linked to Iq published recently. There are also other factors too; people who take a singular liberal socialist view tend to be on the higher or very low side of the IQ charts. The ones on the lower side are less likely to be atheists. The fanatic need to drive home his/her side and belittle others displays a superiority complex that fits well with that assessment. Based on my interaction with people of very high IQ, id say His/her intelligence is not quite on the very high end, They tend to a bit more egocentric and honestly typically have far greater mental and social issues. in any case IQ isn't nearly as important as people make it out to be. If I had realized that back in grade school id be far better off in life right now. People with the highest Iqs tend to be utter failures at life, just like people with straight A averages even in college, tend to have far lower success rates in life than C or B students. Placing too high a value on academia is as bad as overrating the benefits of general intellect.

Nice projection, and i think it would be safe to assume you are 'thinking' for some of the group. I don't see myself as smarter or anything of the sort, but I do see the incredibly ignorant stuff that's posted on here.

Let's put it this way it's easy for anyone taking on conservative arguments to appear smart.

You are right about IQ not being a measure of success in our culture because success=money in said culture. So you don't need a high IQ ,just a high ruthlessness quotient.

 

[Steeltime]

I don't see myself as smarter or anything of the sort, but I do see the incredibly ignorant stuff that's posted on here..

Of course you see it; you write it.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Based on his/her interactions here Id say Palo displays the traits of someone with around a 120 to 135 ish IQ. There are some good pieces about personality traits linked to Iq published recently. There are also other factors too; people who take a singular liberal socialist view tend to be on the higher or very low side of the IQ charts. The ones on the lower side are less likely to be atheists. The fanatic need to drive home his/her side and belittle others displays a superiority complex that fits well with that assessment. Based on my interaction with people of very high IQ, id say His/her intelligence is not quite on the very high end, They tend to a bit more egocentric and honestly typically have far greater mental and social issues. in any case IQ isn't nearly as important as people make it out to be. If I had realized that back in grade school id be far better off in life right now. People with the highest Iqs tend to be utter failures at life, just like people with straight A averages even in college, tend to have far lower success rates in life than C or B students. Placing too high a value on academia is as bad as overrating the benefits of general intellect.

What..the...****? Bunch of dribble, bud.