• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Movie Night for S.N. climate deniers,yes it's free as in Socialist free.

So thermohaline currents are hiding global warming? Why didn't the super smart computer models account for them? It's not as though they are new.

No you're jumping from one thing to another. Thermohaline was in reference to the thermodynamics of the experiment that buffoon poster brought up. Your questions is about 'hiding' global warming.

To answer it simply there is a slowdown in the rate of atmospheric warming, there is no 'hiding', energy is energy it has to go somewhere. The reason the models didn't account for it(underestimation) is because we have had the strongest Pacific trade winds(associated with Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation) in over a century starting from about the year 2000. That window of time is too short for models anyway(2000-2013/14). The strong trade winds indicate the IPO is in a negative phase so surface water goes down and takes the heat with it, in return of course cooler water comes up.
 
damn, I forgot about the salt. I should know that salt and wind combined make water suck all of the hot air out of the atmosphere.
 
To answer it simply there is a slowdown in the rate of atmospheric warming, there is no 'hiding', energy is energy it has to go somewhere. The reason the models didn't account for it(underestimation) is because we have had the strongest Pacific trade winds(associated with Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation) in over a century starting from about the year 2000. That window of time is too short for models anyway(2000-2013/14). The strong trade winds indicate the IPO is in a negative phase so surface water goes down and takes the heat with it, in return of course cooler water comes up.

Number of models that predicted this event: 0

Number of models that accurately projected temperatures: 0

Listening to explanations from AGW crowd as to why their models are always wrong: Priceless.
 
Listening to explanations from AGW crowd as to why their models are always wrong: Priceless.

Junk science

Report: 95 percent of global warming models are wrong

Environmentalists and Democrats often cite a “97 percent” consensus among climate scientists about global warming. But they never cite estimates that 95 percent of climate models predicting global temperature rises have been wrong.

Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.” Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models “have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”

“I am growing weary of the variety of emotional, misleading, and policy-useless statements like ‘most warming since the 1950s is human caused’ or ‘97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming’, neither of which leads to the conclusion we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good. Yet, that is the direction we are heading,”

Climate scientists have been baffled by the 17-year pause in global warming. At least eight explanations have been offered to explain the lapse in warming, including declining solar activity and natural climate cycles.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/
 
This is getting so old, since man discovered the power of the printed word, he has tried to manipulate power and fortune through predictions of future devastating events.

Al Gore: Entire north polar ice cap will be gone in 2013

Al Gore on 13 December 2008: “The entire north polar ice cap will be gone in 5 years”

Click here for full article

This list of predictions would be humorous if it wasn't for the fact that these people actually believed this crap.
http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/predictions/

Back in the 70's we were inundated with "global cooling" ,


what's next, cooling then warming..... oh that's right, Climate Change. Can't go wrong with that !
 
Last edited:
This is getting so old, since man discovered the power of the printed word, he has tried to manipulate power and fortune through predictions of future devastating events.

This list of predictions would be humorous if it wasn't for the fact that these people actually believed this crap.
http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/predictions/

Back in the 70's we were inundated with "global cooling" ,

what's next, cooling then warming..... oh that's right, Climate Change. Can't go wrong with that !

That's my main opinion. Over the past centuries and milleniums the earth has gotten cooler and the earth has gotten warmer. Long before the invention of the SUV and massive burning of fossil fuels and when the world's population was a fraction of what it is now.
 
Number of models that predicted this event: 0

Number of models that accurately projected temperatures: 0

Listening to explanations from AGW crowd as to why their models are always wrong: Priceless.

I see you managed to remove Christy's ball sack from your mouth to come up for air. Are you in agreement with him on AGW per his court testimony.

WATCH CAREFULLY STEELER NATION THIS IS PRICELESS, WATCH HIM RUN AWAY.
 
This is getting so old, since man discovered the power of the printed word, he has tried to manipulate power and fortune through predictions of future devastating events.



This list of predictions would be humorous if it wasn't for the fact that these people actually believed this crap.
http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/predictions/

Back in the 70's we were inundated with "global cooling" ,



what's next, cooling then warming..... oh that's right, Climate Change. Can't go wrong with that !

1.Al Gore is not a climate scientist
2. About 10% of peer reviewed papers in the 70's predicted cooling, more than 60% warming.

HOW Many LIES CAN YOU REPEAT? IT"S GETTING OLD!
 
damn, I forgot about the salt. I should know that salt and wind combined make water suck all of the hot air out of the atmosphere.

Your ignorance has few limitations...something to be proud of I guess.
 
Last edited:
That's my main opinion. Over the past centuries and milleniums the earth has gotten cooler and the earth has gotten warmer. Long before the invention of the SUV and massive burning of fossil fuels and when the world's population was a fraction of what it is now.

There also used to be dinosaurs and some people rode them.

jesus-riding-dinosaur-widea.jpg
 
Go look up why the co-founder of Green Peace resigned. While you are at it look up where Al Gore admitted that he lied about global warming.
 
That T Rex should be redder... and Jesus should be darker... Obvious forgery... cant you get anything right ;)
 
That T Rex should be redder... and Jesus should be darker... Obvious forgery... cant you get anything right ;)
This is the way Elfiero went out. When all of her claims proved hollow and unsustainable, she started to lose it and take cheap juvenile shots like the dinosaur pic. Too bad. It's a lot more fun with PM 43 around.
 
I support open debate as much as possible... I may not agree with him/her, but its certainly fun to watch the response in general. who knows, every now and again something that hasnt been rehashed a thousand times comes up and you find out some new perspective... not likely with the material, but still....
 
Junk science

Report: 95 percent of global warming models are wrong

Environmentalists and Democrats often cite a “97 percent” consensus among climate scientists about global warming. But they never cite estimates that 95 percent of climate models predicting global temperature rises have been wrong.

Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.” Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models “have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”

“I am growing weary of the variety of emotional, misleading, and policy-useless statements like ‘most warming since the 1950s is human caused’ or ‘97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming’, neither of which leads to the conclusion we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good. Yet, that is the direction we are heading,”

Climate scientists have been baffled by the 17-year pause in global warming. At least eight explanations have been offered to explain the lapse in warming, including declining solar activity and natural climate cycles.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/

ALL climate models are wrong this is not news, it's the degree of wrong that matters.
 
Go look up why the co-founder of Green Peace resigned. While you are at it look up where Al Gore admitted that he lied about global warming.

He's not the co-founder. Next lie.
 
Would this make you a special kind of retard? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

No that would be an encyclopedia entry on Ice Ages. If you think that article is going to bring down all or any of climate science, then again enjoy your special status. You've certainly earned it.

If you would like to further extend your jackassery then point out exactly what you or the clowns at 'Watts Up With That' believe from that entry invalidates AGW theory.
 
No that would be an encyclopedia entry on Ice Ages. If you think that article is going to bring down all or any of climate science, then again enjoy your special status. You've certainly earned it.

If you would like to further extend your jackassery then point out exactly what you or the clowns at 'Watts Up With That' believe from that entry invalidates AGW theory.

My point, which you obviously missed is that we are in a ******* Ice Age. This means that the planet has been much warmer in the past than it is now. Do you get where I am going now? Do I need to spell it out further? Were you a fan of #36? If the answer is yes then get on the bus because I am about to take you to school young boy.
 
My point, which you obviously missed is that we are in a ******* Ice Age. This means that the planet has been much warmer in the past than it is now. Do you get where I am going now? Do I need to spell it out further? Were you a fan of #36? If the answer is yes then get on the bus because I am about to take you to school young boy.

You're just not smart enough to quit while you're behind are you? You go ahead I won't get on that bus, I will drive the trash truck though.

Buckle up Jr.

 
As long as you promise to show me a doctored picture of a polar bear that is going to drown.
You're just not smart enough to quit while you're behind are you? You go ahead I won't get on that bus, I will drive the trash truck though.

Buckle up Jr.

 
He's not the co-founder. Next lie.

Not so fast jack ***

Patrick Moore has been speaking out about this before and like other skeptics, including Freeman Dyson, has gotten the expected treatment by the left. Now he appeared in Congress to make a point that is backed by science, but denied by a climate science establishment getting fat off Global Warming and Green Energy grants.





A Greenpeace co-founder testified in Congress on Tuesday about global warming. What he said is hardly what anyone would expect.

“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” said Moore, who was testifying before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight.

“If there were such a proof, it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.”

Moore didn’t hold back in his Senate appearance. He quickly zeroed in on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and strongly scolded it for claiming there is a “95-100% probability” that man “has been the dominant cause of” global warming. Those numbers, he said, have been invented.

He also characterized the IPCC’s reliance on computer models as futile; told senators that history “fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming”; and noted that “during the Greenhouse Ages,” a period that precedes our fossil-fuel burning civilization, “there was no ice on either pole and all the land was tropical and subtropical from pole to pole.”

Moore further crossed the line of accepted climate change discourse when he insisted “that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one” and reminded lawmakers “that we are not capable, with our limited knowledge, of predicting which way” temperatures “will go next.”

Anyone who has been caught in the snow because the NOAA predicted a warmer winter already knows that. Our ability to predict the weather grows hazier at a distance in time. We can’t predict the weather two weeks from now. We certainly can’t predict the weather two hundred years from now.

Meanwhile James Lovelock, the eccentric figure behind Gaia and a revered figure in the Warmist community, is also being most unhelpful though for another reason.





Lovelock believes global warming is now irreversible, and that nothing can prevent large parts of the planet becoming too hot to inhabit, or sinking underwater, resulting in mass migration, famine and epidemics. Britain is going to become a lifeboat for refugees from mainland Europe, so instead of wasting our time on wind turbines we need to start planning how to survive. To Lovelock, the logic is clear. The sustainability brigade are insane to think we can save ourselves by going back to nature; our only chance of survival will come not from less technology, but more.

Nuclear power, he argues, can solve our energy problem – the bigger challenge will be food. “Maybe they’ll synthesise food. I don’t know. Synthesising food is not some mad visionary idea; you can buy it in Tesco’s, in the form of Quorn. It’s not that good, but people buy it. You can live on it.” But he fears we won’t invent the necessary technologies in time, and expects “about 80%” of the world’s population to be wiped out by 2100. Prophets have been foretelling Armageddon since time began, he says. “But this is the real thing.”

Recycling, he adds, is “almost certainly a waste of time and energy”, while having a “green lifestyle” amounts to little more than “ostentatious grand gestures”. He distrusts the notion of ethical consumption. “Because always, in the end, it turns out to be a scam … or if it wasn’t one in the beginning, it becomes one.”

He saves his thunder for what he considers the emptiest false promise of all – renewable energy.

“You’re never going to get enough energy from wind to run a society such as ours,” he says. “Windmills! Oh no. No way of doing it. You can cover the whole country with the blasted things, millions of them. Waste of time.”

Mind you, in 2012, Lovelock admitted he was too alarmist about Global Warming.


James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being “alarmist” about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too.

Lovelock, 92, is writing a new book in which he will say climate change is still happening, but not as quickly as he once feared.

He previously painted some of the direst visions of the effects of climate change. In 2006, in an article in the U.K.’s Independent newspaper, he wrote that “before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.”

The moral of the story is that environmentalists are basically trolls and should be ignored.
 
Top