Hottest Spring On Record Globally 2014

[madinsomniac]

Its funny how narrow minded people totally miss the point of something and always conclude they are right and winning a debate when mostly they just look like fanatics to the average person... Im pretty well versed in both sides... if I wanted to go to a hardcore pro MM warming site and pull all the same arguments to post here I could... If I wanted to go to an anti MM warming site and do the same to counter all of those points I could do that too... the arguments for both sides aren't exactly secrets... which is exactly why its Ok to have two disputing theories until more data is known... of course people who are bigots never realize they are bigots... their opinion is right and all else be damned. Everyone else is just a simple minded fool...

This particular argument really disturbs me about the extremists mindset... so desperate to be right that they abandon all else... this particular issue has allowed Fracking, which has a far more quantifiable potential short term and long term environmental impact and is making the same companies that are being completely demonized in other debates by these same people, like Halliburton, Billions, to be totally overlooked while completely useless regulations are contemplated... the us is responsible for 6% of global mm Carbon Dioxide. Lets not even account for the net sink policies that demonstrate that more CO2 is removed from managed forests and land than produced in this country. lets just focus on the absolute uselessness of cutting a fraction of what already is a fraction of total CO2 production because naturally produced CO2 through human and animal life as well as forest fires and volcanoes and natural releases of groundborn CO2 is significantly large, as well as unaccounted for sources like small fires and other unregulated small reactions of the same ilk... its a drop in the bucket if they were able to make this happen... and they don't have the tech to do it yet... so why is it being pushed so hard?...

I will be the first in line to argue coal plants are dirty and we need a long term replacement that makes sense... but why the push to collapse the industry just in the US right now? By some accounts there is no hope even now, by others there is quite some time before events are irreversible. in either case the changes that are being forced are relatively useless. Shouldn't all the haliburton Iraq Oil conspiracy theorists be on this same train of thought here... or is it just that their party has decided what to think for them...


I said it before I will again... the extremists from the dems and the repubs will be the downfall of this country. Narrow-minded bigots and fools... blind to whatever they don't want to see...

 

[Confluence]

I'm not a mathematician or a climate scientist but I can tell you that my guess on the baseline would be after having read some Of the IPCC reports in the past, that they are trying to use(in most cases) the latest ~30 year data sets so everyone can be on the same page. In other words guys studying ice sheets, atmosphere etc.

If I had to guess it would also be that the last set is the one that contains the NASA satellite data that is the most accurate(technology evolution). Any earlier sets that depended on land temperature stations would be slightly less accurate as they leaned more on interpolation as some parts of the world had at that time stations scattered farther apart.

As far as the graph and it being 'reasonable' that it's part of a natural cycle, what cycle would that be? Also the coincidence of this hypothetical cycle aligning perfectly with humans release in the last 150+years of massive amounts of greenhouse gases....the odds of that happening would have to be astronomical.


We also know because of experimentation and observation that CO2 absorbs and emits long wave radiation. If this is part of a longer frequency natural cycle then where is the extra energy from G.G. emission going? That the extra energy matches up with the amount of G.G.'s released PROVES it's not a natural cycle.

If your trying to use Fred Singers '1500 year cycle' argument that has been thoroughly debunked, I say try again.

It doesn't add up, the only way it does is when you look at fossil fuel use.

So we have learned that you don't know about charts, data, baselines or cyclicality.

Because of this poor depth of knowledge on your part, you are very susceptible to cargo cult science as you are demonstrating.

Wilfully gullible, because you choose not to properly educate yourself, is no way to go thru life Elfie.

 

[Confluence]

^^^ Serious question. Anyone know?

I'll bite, Bubbles. What kinda poles you talking about?

 

[Confluence]

Its funny how narrow minded people totally miss the point of something and always conclude they are right and winning a debate when mostly they just look like fanatics to the average person... Im pretty well versed in both sides... if I wanted to go to a hardcore pro MM warming site and pull all the same arguments to post here I could... If I wanted to go to an anti MM warming site and do the same to counter all of those points I could do that too... the arguments for both sides aren't exactly secrets... which is exactly why its Ok to have two disputing theories until more data is known... of course people who are bigots never realize they are bigots... their opinion is right and all else be damned. Everyone else is just a simple minded fool...

This particular argument really disturbs me about the extremists mindset... so desperate to be right that they abandon all else... this particular issue has allowed Fracking, which has a far more quantifiable potential short term and long term environmental impact and is making the same companies that are being completely demonized in other debates by these same people, like Halliburton, Billions, to be totally overlooked while completely useless regulations are contemplated... the us is responsible for 6% of global mm Carbon Dioxide. Lets not even account for the net sink policies that demonstrate that more CO2 is removed from managed forests and land than produced in this country. lets just focus on the absolute uselessness of cutting a fraction of what already is a fraction of total CO2 production because naturally produced CO2 through human and animal life as well as forest fires and volcanoes and natural releases of groundborn CO2 is significantly large, as well as unaccounted for sources like small fires and other unregulated small reactions of the same ilk... its a drop in the bucket if they were able to make this happen... and they don't have the tech to do it yet... so why is it being pushed so hard?...

I will be the first in line to argue coal plants are dirty and we need a long term replacement that makes sense... but why the push to collapse the industry just in the US right now? By some accounts there is no hope even now, by others there is quite some time before events are irreversible. in either case the changes that are being forced are relatively useless. Shouldn't all the haliburton Iraq Oil conspiracy theorists be on this same train of thought here... or is it just that their party has decided what to think for them...


I said it before I will again... the extremists from the dems and the repubs will be the downfall of this country. Narrow-minded bigots and fools... blind to whatever they don't want to see...

Don't forget the nasty stuff that comes out of the vents where the seafloor is spreading. I don't think anyone has ever been able to estimate the noxious stuff that comes out, or the rate that it does. Wouldn't it be ironic if the globle itself had some sort of irregular or cyclical pattern in emissions from the deeps?

What if any observable increase in any greenhouse gases can be explained by deep-sea farts?

 

[EdReed4Prez]

I'll bite, Bubbles. What kinda poles you talking about?

Ice covered polar caps. How much of the Earth's history has had them?

 

[Confluence]

Ice covered polar caps. How much of the Earth's history has had them?

Rats. (suck)

Thought you meant this kind of Poles:
http://www.ranker.com/list/hottest-polish-models/bikinibabehotties?format=SLIDESHOW&page=2

 

[madinsomniac]

Yes... people do not realize how often or what scale CO2 releases normally into the atmosphere... look up lake Nyos... IIRC... its almost like the globe would have some natural way of dealing with suddenly high levels of CO2 or holes in the Ozone layer... since they have repeatedly happened throughout history...

 

[CharlesDavenport]

The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record

- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...e-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.

More good stuff on Goddard's blog - https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/author/stevengoddard/

Yeah, I know, he is a denier so it must be pseudo science.

 

[Djfan]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...e-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

The scandal of fiddled global warming data
The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record

By Christopher Booker4:04PM BST 21 Jun 2014

When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.
When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found nothing more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous “hockey stick” graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter than at any time in 1,000 years. Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology.

 

[Spike]

-

Yeah, I know, he is a denier so it must be pseudo science.

Denier Alert! Denier Alert! Call the re-education camps!

Liberalism for Dummies:

Step 1: Convince the populace that the very gas they exhale and the very element they are made up of, carbon, is pollution. This pollution puts the very planet in jeopardy, and must be regulated by any-means-possible

What do you expect Liberals to propose in response to each and every new "crisis"?

Take healthcare as an example: raise taxes, grow government, impede capitalism and reduce personal and national sovereignty.

So what are the Liberal prescriptions for climate change? --- raise taxes, grow government, impede capitalism and reduce personal and national sovereignty.

Final proof: Liberalism is a mental disorder

 

[Scott T]

Isn't CO2 food for plants? Why to Climate change peeps hate trees and plants?

 

[Rod Farva]

I used to work with a guy that pronounced pseudo as peh-suede-oh.

Guess which way he leaned ploitically?

 

[JupiterBnG]

Phil Collins pronounces it suh-sue-dee-oh. Sometimes he stutters on the first syllable.

 

[Spike]

Hilarious!


Greens are Raging Extremists, says Greenpeace Co-Founder

"Climate change" is a theory for which there is "no scientific proof at all" says the co-founder of Greenpeace. And the green movement has become a "combination of extreme political ideology and religious fundamentalism rolled into one."


Patrick Moore, a Canadian environmentalist who helped found Greenpeace in the Seventies but subsequently left in protest at its increasingly extreme, anti-scientific, anti-capitalist stance, argues that the green position on climate change fails the most basic principles of the scientific method.

"The certainty among many scientists that humans are the main cause of climate change, including global warming, is not based on the replication of observable events. It is based on just two things, the theoretical effect of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, predominantly carbon dioxide, and the predictions of computer models using those theoretical calculations. There is no scientific "proof" at all."

Moore goes on to list some key facts about "climate change" which are ignored by true believers.


1. The concentration of CO2 in the global atmosphere is lower today, even including human emissions, than it has been during most of the existence of life on Earth.

2. The global climate has been much warmer than it is today during most of the existence of life on Earth. Today we are in an interglacial period of the Pleistocene Ice Age that began 2.5 million years ago and has not ended.

3. There was an Ice Age 450 million years ago when CO2 was about 10 times higher than it is today.

4. Humans evolved in the tropics near the equator. We are a tropical species and can only survive in colder climates due to fire, clothing and shelter.

5. CO2 is the most important food for all life on earth. All green plants use CO2 to produce the sugars that provide energy for their growth and our growth. Without CO2 in the atmosphere carbon-based life could never have evolved.

6. The optimum CO2 level for most plants is about 1600 parts per million, four times higher than the level today. This is why greenhouse growers purposely inject the CO2-rich exhaust from their gas and wood-fired heaters into the greenhouse, resulting in a 40-80 per cent increase in growth.

7. If human emissions of CO2 do end up causing significant warming (which is not certain) it may be possible to grow food crops in northern Canada and Russia, vast areas that are now too cold for agriculture.

8. Whether increased CO2 levels cause significant warming or not, the increased CO2 levels themselves will result in considerable increases in the growth rate of plants, including our food crops and forests.

9. There has been no further global warming for nearly 18 years during which time about 25 per cent of all the CO2 ever emitted by humans has been added to the atmosphere. How long will it remain flat and will it next go up or back down? Now we are out of the realm of facts and back into the game of predictions.


http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...-raging-extremists-says-Greenpeace-co-founder

 

[Rod Farva]

Well, those are some inconvenient facts.

Side note:can't wait to try some of that tundra corn.

 

[EdReed4Prez]

That guy drives to work in a gas powered vehicle that he fills up at Exxon. I don't think we can count him as non-biased.

 

[PoloMalo43]

So we have learned that you don't know about charts, data, baselines or cyclicality.

Because of this poor depth of knowledge on your part, you are very susceptible to cargo cult science as you are demonstrating.

Wilfully gullible, because you choose not to properly educate yourself, is no way to go thru life Elfie.

Well then enlighten me. You don't need to go in to the graphs I know enough to understand your implying there is a cycle of longer frequency that we're just not aware off, you know the magical unicorn cycle.

I just want an answer to a simple question since this is the hypothesis you are promoting.

Where is the energy from the green house gases disappearing to? We know this is an energy imbalance problem we also know energy can't be destroyed, so where is it?

 

[PoloMalo43]

Its funny how narrow minded people totally miss the point of something and always conclude they are right and winning a debate when mostly they just look like fanatics to the average person... Im pretty well verses in both sides... if I wanted to go to a hardcore pro MM warming site and pull all the same arguments to post here I could... If I wanted to go to an anti MM warming site and do the same to counter all of those points I could do that too... the arguments for both sides aren't exactly secrets... which is exactly why its Ok to have two disputing theories until more data is known... of course people who are bigots never realize they are bigots... their opinion is right and all else be damned. Everyone else is just a simple minded fool...

This particular argument really disturbs me about the extremists mindset... so desperate to be right that they abandon all else... this particular issue has allowed Fracking, which has a far more quantifiable potential short term and long term environmental impact and is making the same companies that are being completely demonized in other debates by these same people, like Halliburton, Billions, to be totally overlooked while completely useless regulations are contemplated... the us is responsible for 6% of global mm Carbon Dioxide. Lets not even account for the net sink policies that demonstrate that more CO2 is removed from managed forests and land than produced in this country. lets just focus on the absolute uselessness of cutting a fraction of what already is a fraction of total CO2 production because naturally produced CO2 through human and animal life as well as forest fires and volcanoes and natural releases of groundborn CO2 is significantly large, as well as unaccounted for sources like small fires and other unregulated small reactions of the same ilk... its a drop in the bucket if they were able to make this happen... and they don't have the tech to do it yet... so why is it being pushed so hard?...

I will be the first in line to argue coal plants are dirty and we need a long term replacement that makes sense... but why the push to collapse the industry just in the US right now? By some accounts there is no hope even now, by others there is quite some time before events are irreversible. in either case the changes that are being forced are relatively useless. Shouldn't all the haliburton Iraq Oil conspiracy theorists be on this same train of thought here... or is it just that their party has decided what to think for them...


I said it before I will again... the extremists from the dems and the repubs will be the downfall of this country. Narrow-minded bigots and fools... blind to whatever they don't want to see...

Precisely, this is the position of the denier. No matter how many facts get in their way, no matter how clearly you link the people they think are engaged in science to the fossil fuel industry, blind fanaticism keeps them stuck in their delusion.

They can even have Exxon tell them and it doesn't matter...............they can read the writing on the wall.

As greedy as they may be it would be pretty stupid to help completely destroy your business by destroying your customer base.

http://news.exxonmobil.com/press-re...es-reports-shareholders-managing-climate-risk

 

[PoloMalo43]

Hilarious!


Greens are Raging Extremists, says Greenpeace Co-Founder

"Climate change" is a theory for which there is "no scientific proof at all" says the co-founder of Greenpeace. And the green movement has become a "combination of extreme political ideology and religious fundamentalism rolled into one."


Patrick Moore, a Canadian environmentalist who helped found Greenpeace in the Seventies but subsequently left in protest at its increasingly extreme, anti-scientific, anti-capitalist stance, argues that the green position on climate change fails the most basic principles of the scientific method.

"The certainty among many scientists that humans are the main cause of climate change, including global warming, is not based on the replication of observable events. It is based on just two things, the theoretical effect of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, predominantly carbon dioxide, and the predictions of computer models using those theoretical calculations. There is no scientific "proof" at all."

Moore goes on to list some key facts about "climate change" which are ignored by true believers.


1. The concentration of CO2 in the global atmosphere is lower today, even including human emissions, than it has been during most of the existence of life on Earth.

2. The global climate has been much warmer than it is today during most of the existence of life on Earth. Today we are in an interglacial period of the Pleistocene Ice Age that began 2.5 million years ago and has not ended.

3. There was an Ice Age 450 million years ago when CO2 was about 10 times higher than it is today.

4. Humans evolved in the tropics near the equator. We are a tropical species and can only survive in colder climates due to fire, clothing and shelter.

5. CO2 is the most important food for all life on earth. All green plants use CO2 to produce the sugars that provide energy for their growth and our growth. Without CO2 in the atmosphere carbon-based life could never have evolved.

6. The optimum CO2 level for most plants is about 1600 parts per million, four times higher than the level today. This is why greenhouse growers purposely inject the CO2-rich exhaust from their gas and wood-fired heaters into the greenhouse, resulting in a 40-80 per cent increase in growth.

7. If human emissions of CO2 do end up causing significant warming (which is not certain) it may be possible to grow food crops in northern Canada and Russia, vast areas that are now too cold for agriculture.

8. Whether increased CO2 levels cause significant warming or not, the increased CO2 levels themselves will result in considerable increases in the growth rate of plants, including our food crops and forests.

9. There has been no further global warming for nearly 18 years during which time about 25 per cent of all the CO2 ever emitted by humans has been added to the atmosphere. How long will it remain flat and will it next go up or back down? Now we are out of the realm of facts and back into the game of predictions.


http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...-raging-extremists-says-Greenpeace-co-founder

Again with the guy who did not co-found Greenpeace and works for the nuclear industry?.......

I guess if you repeat it enough conservatives will believe it...well on second thought no need to repeat.

 

[PoloMalo43]

Don't forget the nasty stuff that comes out of the vents where the seafloor is spreading. I don't think anyone has ever been able to estimate the noxious stuff that comes out, or the rate that it does. Wouldn't it be ironic if the globle itself had some sort of irregular or cyclical pattern in emissions from the deeps?

What if any observable increase in any greenhouse gases can be explained by deep-sea farts?

Most life would already be gone since methane is anywhere from 85 to 100 times more potent than CO2 depending on the time scale(starting at 20 years), then to that you would also add our emissions. Try again, keep grasping for those straws.

 

[PoloMalo43]

Isn't CO2 food for plants? Why to Climate change peeps hate trees and plants?

Why yes it is. Human beings need water as well wouldn't you agree?

I'll tell you like I told the other guy; drink 10 gallons of water within an hour, make sure you inform a relative before you start this experiment so they can report the autopsy results to us here.

Kids and the 2 adults on here, DO NOT ACTUALLY DO THIS!

 

[Spike]

"the green movement has become a "combination of extreme political ideology and religious fundamentalism rolled into one."


Go pound on your Mother Earth bible you fundamentalist enviro-jihadist!

 

[Spike]

Plants Reveal Rainfall Changes Over Last 24,000 Years

Across the edges of the Indian Ocean, the amount of rainfall differs greatly. If it rains particularly hard in the Sumatran rain forest, the already arid region of East Africa is onset with drought. Researchers from the Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (BiK-F), the California Institute of Technology, the Univerity of Southern California and the University of Bremen found that this cyclic, bipolar climate phenomenon has likely been around for 10,000 years. The pilot study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), sheds light on the climate system of a region whose rainfall patterns have a major impact on global climate. Therefore, this study is of special interest to climate researchers

In the long term, changes in sea level were of minor importance to rainfall patterns in north western Sumatra With the end of the last Ice Age came rising temperatures and melting polar ice sheets, which were accompanied by an increase in rainfall around Indonesia and many other regions of the world.. In contrast, the plant wax record from the study site in north western Sumatra reveals similarly high amounts of rainfall during both the Last Glacial Maximum and the Holocene. The amount of rainfall during the past 24,000 years seems to be linked to the level of exposure of the Sunda Shelf and in particular to the specific topography of the western edge of the region, rather than to changes in deglacial climate boundary conditions alone. “This is quite unexpected. Based on previous studies it was assumed that the entire region was much drier during the Last Glacial Maximum compared to present conditions,“ Niedermeyer concludes.

http://www.reportingclimatescience....l-rainfall-changes-over-last-24000-years.html

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

” found that this cyclic, bipolar climate phenomenon has likely been around for 10,000 years.”

Pretty much destroys the CO2 ozone hole theory, gas guzzlin SUV’s, cow farts and all other high methane producing organisms.

 

[coupon]

Poison ivy loves CO2. **** is gunna git itchy 'round here

 

[Spike]

More good stuff on Goddard's blog

NOAA/NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000

Scientists at two of the world¡¯s leading climate centres - NASA and NOAA - have been caught out manipulating temperature data to overstate the extent of the 20th century "global warming".

Prior to the year 2000, NASA showed US temperatures cooling since the 1930¡äs, and 1934 much warmer than 1998.

NASA¡¯s top climatologist said that the US had been cooling


Whither U.S. Climate?
By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato ¡ª August 1999

Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought.

in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases ¡ª in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country

NOAA and CRU also reported no warming in the US during the century prior to 1989.


February 04, 1989

Last week, scientists from the United States Commerce Department¡¯s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that a study of temperature readings for the contiguous 48 states over the last century showed there had been no significant change in average temperature over that period. Dr. (Phil) Jones said in a telephone interview today that his own results for the 48 states agreed with those findings.

Right after the year 2000, NASA and NOAA dramatically altered US climate history, making the past much colder and the present much warmer. The animation below shows how NASA cooled 1934 and warmed 1998, to make 1998 the hottest year in US history instead of 1934. This alteration turned a long term cooling trend since 1930 into a warming trend.

But NASA and NOAA have a little problem. The EPA still shows that heatwaves during the 1930s were by far the worst in US temperature record.

Heat waves in the 1930s remain the most severe heat waves in the U.S. historical record (see Figure 1).


George Orwell explained how this worked.

"He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past."

¨D George Orwell, 1984

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/