Hottest Spring On Record Globally 2014

[Hineswardkickedurpanzyass]

Chip, what you fail to understand is FBP declared the science is settled. And elfie is now going to do some stupid **** like post a clown car and declare victory. The actual real world events have nothing to do with their agenda, and will be routinely denied. Maybe we should term them actual climate deniers.

Antarctic Sea Ice Growing Despite Global Warming Warnings

The sea ice coverage around Antarctica over the weekend marked a record high, with the ice surrounding the continent measuring at 2.07 million square kilometers, according to an environmentalist and author who says the ice there has actually been increasing since 1979 despite continued warnings of global warming.

While early models predicted the sea ice would decrease because of global warming, other models are showing that the opposite is happening around Antarctica, where sea ice growth is increasing.

"A freshening of the waters surrounding the southernmost continent as well as the strengthening of the winds circling it were both theorized as explanations for the steady growth of Antarctica’s sea ice during the period of satellite measurement," said Ambler.

However, he pointed out that climatologists have discounted the importance and growth of the Antarctic sea ice.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/an...utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1

Cut and paste..cut and paste, such fun it is to cut and paste.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Chip, what you fail to understand is FBP declared the science is settled. And elfie is now going to do some stupid **** like post a clown car and declare victory. The actual real world events have nothing to do with their agenda, and will be routinely denied. Maybe we should term them actual climate deniers.

Didn't Al Gore say about ten years ago that the polar ice caps would be melted by now?

 

[EdReed4Prez]

Didn't Al Gore say about ten years ago that the polar ice caps would be melted by now?

That was before we realized that warming caused ice growth, flooding, drought, lulls in hurricane cycles, spikes in hurricane activity, really big hurricanes, tornadoes, mudslides, sink holes, tsunamis, earthquakes, and ice melting too. Now that we've expanded what global warming does we see evidence of it everywhere.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

It is amazing to me that despite all the evidence that this "Climate" thing is just a scam, she continues to dig up more spin from the depths of the movement. I guess when you're hooked, you're hooked and nothing will remove them blinders. I refer to my friend Rod and his quote below...seems he's got it nailed.

View attachment 277

The Libs are going to have to wrap their heads with Glen Beck's duct tape if they ever figure out that AGW is a religion.

Never gets old:

 

[Hineswardkickedurpanzyass]

That was before we realized that warming caused ice growth, flooding, drought, lulls in hurricane cycles, spikes in hurricane activity, really big hurricanes, tornadoes, mudslides, sink holes, tsunamis, earthquakes, and ice melting too. Now that we've expanded what global warming does we see evidence of it everywhere.

you forgot droughts and polar vortex's

 

[SteelChip]

Chip, what you fail to understand is FBP declared the science is settled. And elfie is now going to do some stupid **** like post a clown car and declare victory. The actual real world events have nothing to do with their agenda, and will be routinely denied. Maybe we should term them actual climate deniers.

It is amazing to me that despite all the evidence that this "Climate" thing is just a scam, she continues to dig up more spin from the depths of the movement. I guess when you're hooked, you're hooked and nothing will remove them blinders. I refer to my friend Rod and his quote below...seems he's got it nailed.

"I believe otherwise, therefore the science is settled ! You really should be able to hear me sighing condescendingly and see how far back my eyes rolled just now, to get the full effect"--Rod Farva

View attachment 277

You're right Jon, he did....and this douche-bag continues to fill the weak minds of the world with more of his blathering lunacy as we speak.

 

[Rod Farva]

ha ha - more inconvenient truths

ICEBERGS are spotted still floating in Lake Superior in the middle of June

Icebergs can still be seen floating in Lake Superior near Madeline Island, off the shore of Wisconsin

The Great Lakes were declared ice free on June 7 following a record-breaking seven months of ice coverage. They usually thaw by May

On April 20, 2014, NASA's Aqua satellite captured this natural-color image of Lake Superior, which straddles the United States/Canada border. At the time Aqua passed over, the lake was a record 63.5 percent ice covered

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...or-despite-Great-Lakes-declared-ice-free.html

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


Antarctic Sea Ice Growing Despite Global Warming Warnings

The sea ice coverage around Antarctica over the weekend marked a record high, with the ice surrounding the continent measuring at 2.07 million square kilometers, .

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

Until the clown car shows up I'll sub for polelfie.

"Pfft, that first picture could have been taken anywhere, anytime."

"The second picture is obviously the left foot print of a Sasquatch. and what's worse it appears to be filling with ground water containing oil"! "Oh woe is me, we're destroying the earth...... we're melting. Meltinnnnnnng........."

 

[Steeltime]

As to Elfiepolo's claims ... "pfffft, AGW proponents. Make their living off AGW. Bought and paid for with government grants, so their data are irrelevant. Oh, so the graph actually shows inflation of temperatures via adjustments?"

IGNORE THE DATA BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!

P.S. Elfiemolu ... how in God's name does any scientist claim to have "temperature" data from 1880? Thermometer readings? Seriously? From where? How many such readings? Who made the readings? How were they recorded? Who checked the accuracy of the unknown number of thermometers in unknown locations over an unknown span of time?

You realize, don't you, that your own AGW crowd does NOT use surface thermometer readings to judge warming, don't you? And that basically all those involved in AGW research use satellite temperature data for a myriad of reasons (it is truly global, it does not suffer from reading and recordation errors, it is less reliant on devices that are proven to have an unacceptably large deviation in temperature readings).

And here are what the satellite data show:

Since you are too dumb to understand the written word, let me demonstrate this way what I have done to you in this thread:

 

[JupiterBnG]

And here are what the satellite data show:

I hate to break it to you, because I don't subscribe to AGW any more than you do, but that data shows a warming trend.

 

[ark steel]

you forgot droughts and polar vortex's

Don't forget it causes more wars and I even saw a story a while ago relating AGW to the growth in the number of feral cats. No ****.

 

[Vader]

And then there is this:

An undated but clearly recent page at the National Wildlife Federation breathlessly warns readers, in a section entitled "Threats from Global Warming," that "Lake Erie water levels, already below average, could drop 4-5 feet by the end of this century, significantly altering shoreline habitat." A Thursday Huffington Post Canada Business entry observed that "the (Great Lakes) basin has experienced the longest extended period of lower water levels since the U.S. and Canada began tracking levels in 1918." Of course, it's because of "climate change."

Friday, Julie Bosman at the New York Times reported (HT Powerline) that "The International Joint Commission, a group with members from the United States and Canada that advises on water resources, completed a five-year study in April 2013 concluding that water levels in the lakes were likely to drop even farther, in part because of the lack of precipitation in recent years brought on by climate change." But the reason Bosman was on the story is because — fortunately for area residents, but unfortunately for "startled" global warming adherents claiming to be "scientists" — Great Lakes sea levels are rising again (bolds are mine throughout this post):


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-bl...another-warmist-prediction-biti#ixzz369OSv1Gd

 

[Hineswardkickedurpanzyass]

Vader - do you need a clown car? The Great Lakes are evaporating because of AGW and the water vapor is magically finding its way into the oceans which are heating up and rising at an alarming rate. Nemo and friends are all going to die within 2 years if we do not spend another $55 billion on studies. These studies will include a new baseline for the temperature studies which will show clearly to anyone at an Occupy Wall St. rally that this situation has been caused by Halliburton, GW Bush, and Exxon.

 

[Steeltime]

I hate to break it to you, because I don't subscribe to AGW any more than you do, but that data shows a warming trend.

No, it shows a very mild increase due mainly to 1998, a very hot year. The temperature variance is predicated mainly on the Pinatubo cooling in 1992-1993, and the very warm year in 1998.

A straight line graph shows an increase of 0.44 degrees C over a 25-year span. That is not cause for alarm ... temperature increases and decreases of less than 2 degrees C per century are not reason for a massive change in energy production, transportation, food production, etc.

The warming alarmists have never argued that 2 degrees per century is the reason for their panic. They predicted, instead, that warming would be 2 degrees C at the absolute low end of the predictions, and as much as 6.4 degrees C over that span. The predictions of dire consequences revolve around increases of 3 degrees or more:

There is a reason why these models and projections use 2 degrees C as the "minimum" - an increase of 2 degrees C or less will have negligible effect. Further, the most important point about the data is this: All of the climate models are based on "positive feedback," that is, the warming results in changes to the natural environment that create INCREASED warming. For example, the warming causes increased water evaporation, with creates more clouds, which act as thermal insulators, which increase the heating, which releases more CO2 from the ocean, which causes more evaporation, etc., etc.

But the data over the past 50, 25 and 15 years has befuddled the AGW alarmists. CO2 emissions at an all-time high, the feedback should be in full swing, and warming of at least 1.2 degrees C should be in effect ... only to find that is not the case.

In other words, the models are wrong.

And the entire field of AGW is based upon these demonstrably erroneous models.

 

[Steeltime]

And to remain focused on a key point - the "warming" claimed by the AGW alarmists over the past 25 years is due almost exclusively to fabricated data.

"I don’t see how this could be any clearer. Infilling of fabricated temperatures is causing the vast majority of reported warming since 1990. The reason I see this and others don’t – is because I use the actual data reported by USHCN exactly as it is reported."

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com...ssively-corrupting-the-us-temperature-record/

This shows the effect of the fabricated temperature readings for the Unites States since 1990:

The "raw" data show warming from 53.3 degrees C in 1990 to 53.6 degrees C in 2015, or an increase of 0.3 degrees C over a span of 25 years. That equals 1.2 degrees over a century - not the 4, 5 or even 6 degrees the AGW panic-manics predict, based upon their clearly flawed models.

That is the point - the models are wrong, the positive feedback is flawed, the projections are false, and the predictions of doom are unfounded.

 

[PoloMalo43]

Don't forget Scott, her sources are accurate...never paid for sources, biased sources, sources that eschew science to falsify data to push an agenda. Any source that disagrees with her is all of the above.

Despite being proven wrong and again...

Where have I been proven wrong?

Here are the sources you believe are corrupt and engaged in a world wide plot to trick you. The level of delusion that a person like you exists in must be epic to experience by those around you, unless of course they are just as screwed up as you.


American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK

Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias (Mexico)
Russian Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA)

 

[PoloMalo43]

Much like the missing dark matter in cosmology, it is ok to understand that there exist problems to which we do not, yet, have the knowledge to answer correctly. That is what scientific discovery is about.

In the case of this energy, it is completely possible that models could properly account for it by adding an unknown variable that simply admits that part of the math/science is simply unkown at this time. This would make the math/predictions more closely agree with what is observed because the unknown variability is what is clearly eluding climate researchers at this time. At some point in the future, probably when math and computing power are at higher levels, humanity may have a solution for this unknown variable (or more likely, a set of variables, probably with some sort of step function that makes discerning them more fundamentally difficult).

So there you go....energy is always conserved; we simply don't know how in this spectrum of science. That lack of understanding is proved by all the incorrect models and demands that scientists NOT CONCLUDE anything because they don't understand the complexity of nature in this regard.

Like all scientific inquiry, we should allocate resources to this understanding via fundamental research up to the point where we understand the relationships so that we can model properly and correctly match observations to predictions --- that would demonstrate an understanding of the complex system. But at this point in our collective evolution, we do not yet have that understanding. To pretend anyone does is complete hogwash; therefore any policy flowing from poor/bad/incorrect science is bound to be inefficient and wrongly directed. This follows logically.

Apples and oranges. Dark matter is hypothesis this is theory, as in observable, based on physical law, theory.

Why would you add a variable for an unknown when there is no reason to? Why would you do that when observations and experimentation show us what G.G.'s do to force climate change? The clincher is that the amount of G.G's emissions match up with the expected warming.

You are using presupposition for your argument of "unknown variability eluding researchers" that's you engaging in either deceit or wishful thinking. There is no reason for anyone qualified to believe that there is (as I stated in an earlier post) a 'magical unicorn cycle' of a long period.

No evidence for it, and ALL THE EVIDENCE pointing toward climate change cause by fossil fuel use.

 

[Steeltime]

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??

 

[Spike]

Until the clown car shows up I'll sub for polelfie.

"Pfft, that first picture could have been taken anywhere, anytime."

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?

 

[Steeltime]

Can I get an Amen?

 

[Spike]

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

 

[Spike]

More Warmth = Less clothes


Only a *** would argue this is wrong for society

 

[Badcat]

Speaks for your DNA, thanks for sharing what i could easily guess.

And you wonder why no one takes you seriously. Go copy and paste some more made up bullshit that no one is going to read. You are nothing more than the spoken word of a comic; and a bad one at that.

 

[madinsomniac]

A. this thread is suddenly much hotter... and carbon (based life forms) had everything to do with it...lol


Lets not forget to factor in that since the 70's we have been selectively cutting So2 because acid rain is bad, SO2 is naturally produced in most combustion acts, even forest fires, and naturally acts as a coolent in the upper atmosphere. Some of the biggest CO2 believers actually want to inject billions of PPM of SO2 into the upper atmosphere to counter "Global Warming". that is another case where the extreme view threatens to counteract decades of environmental positives ...And we should not fail to factor the direct heating angle, which for some reason many of these studies do... where the large amounts of BTU's directly created by engines affect actual temperature . in periods of low industrial activity the immediate drop in nearby temperature is rarely discussed. On top of that there are reasonable theories that paving and construction increases across the globe have a significant impact on temperature. As more of the world industrializes, there logically should be a mild increase in temperature that has absolutely nothing to do with CO2 and that certainly isn't exponential. All of those factors should have been considered when developing the margin of error on these temp studies, yet they were not.

 

[PoloMalo43]

Popping in here to watch Polo schooled over and over and over again is indeed rich and enjoyable.

Seeing Elfie continue to say things like "This is empirical proof, and is one of many lines of proof." without reference (save for from one of the 97 biased, paid scientists) is priceless.

Just waiting for DD to show up and show the link between IP addresses or for ElfieMalo to break out the African American accent again.

Watching stupidity repeatedly present itself over and over can be entertaining, so I suppose we should thank her.

I'm glad I'm entertaining you with the idea that we should listen to the overwhelming consensus of science on this issue.

It's not as entertaining though as the idea that the less than 3% of people who you guys quote and are paid by fossil fuel interests are to be taken seriously.

I don't think so Tim.

 

[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??

I'll answer this maybe tomorrow just wanted to make sure it didn't disappear.