Tidal Gate - Your Honest AGW Scientists At it Again

[deljzc]

It's that kind of "junk science" that you are falling for. Just think if I told you "no matter what happens, my theory is true". If it's warm, that's climate change. If it's cold, that's climate change. It we don't get a category 3 hurricane hit the U.S. for SEVEN YEARS, that's climate change. If we get 3 category hurricanes in one year, that's climate change. Polar vortex is climate change. If the earth finds ways to adjust or absorb CO2 in ways the scientists never thought of, that's climate change. El Nina's are climate change. El Nino's are climate change. Fires are climate change.

To the left, everything is climate change and proof there of. It's absurd. When are you going to realize that the "sky is falling" rhetoric is backfiring?

It's been years and years of it.... the left is constant in it. CONSTANT. If it's not all the harm the Republicans are doing, then it's all the harm big business is doing. Or the oil companies. Or the pharmaceutical companies.

Tibs, do you ever honestly wonder why the left NEVER says that big government is bad? Even though time and time again that is proven much more prevalent than what big businesses do, or big oil, or big pharma?

You NEVER once admit this. Not once. You constantly want to put blame on everything BUT government.

And that's where you fail in every one of your arguments here. Over and over and over again, you don't see the error of this basic premise. You have no center argument when you eliminate the true evil our founding fathers knew to be the real threat to democracy and freedom and happiness. An overbearing and overreaching central government that promises the impossible and continues to argue in that "group think" and "group agreement" is the only way to success.

I don't know what to say to you anymore. Nothing you say will happen, happens. It's been that way for two years now.

You are turning in to the exact thing the left has become. Delusional in your "righteousness" even when things don't happen the way you predict over and over and over again. And everyone that disagrees with you is a morally corrupt person that just doesn't see the light yet.

 

[Supersteeler]

Scoff all you want, Mr. Elite. I know political propaganda when I see it. True scientists do not need to publicly shame people to get them to believe their theories. The scienfic findings should stand on their own. Hell, that's what the definition of Science IS. When they have to resort to that, you can be sure their theory is based on faulty, politically driven, junk science.

Just for ***** and giggles I would LOVE to know how much you have personally flushed down........I mean donated....to these humanitarian saviors of science and their noble cause of the rescue of our planet.

 

[Booted]

Nice cartoon, Tibs. So much for your New Years thread...

 

[Supersteeler]

It's that kind of "junk science" that you are falling for. Just think if I told you "no matter what happens, my theory is true". If it's warm, that's climate change. If it's cold, that's climate change. It we don't get a category 3 hurricane hit the U.S. for SEVEN YEARS, that's climate change. If we get 3 category hurricanes in one year, that's climate change. Polar vortex is climate change. If the earth finds ways to adjust or absorb CO2 in ways the scientists never thought of, that's climate change. El Nina's are climate change. El Nino's are climate change. Fires are climate change.

To the left, everything is climate change and proof there of. It's absurd. When are you going to realize that the "sky is falling" rhetoric is backfiring?

It's been years and years of it.... the left is constant in it. CONSTANT. If it's not all the harm the Republicans are doing, then it's all the harm big business is doing. Or the oil companies. Or the pharmaceutical companies.

Tibs, do you ever honestly wonder why the left NEVER says that big government is bad? Even though time and time again that is proven much more prevalent than what big businesses do, or big oil, or big pharma?

You NEVER once admit this. Not once. You constantly want to put blame on everything BUT government.

And that's where you fail in every one of your arguments here. Over and over and over again, you don't see the error of this basic premise. You have no center argument when you eliminate the true evil our founding fathers knew to be the real threat to democracy and freedom and happiness. An overbearing and overreaching central government that promises the impossible and continues to argue in that "group think" and "group agreement" is the only way to success.

I don't know what to say to you anymore. Nothing you say will happen, happens. It's been that way for two years now.

You are turning in to the exact thing the left has become. Delusional in your "righteousness" even when things don't happen the way you predict over and over and over again. And everyone that disagrees with you is a morally corrupt person that just doesn't see the light yet.

Intense political dogma eventually makes one blind to common sense and rational thought. You have more chance of having a conversation with a tree stump than getting a dogmatic politically affiliated person to consider any thought that is outside the approved party talking points. Not going to happen. They would die first. This issue is a fabulous example.

I always say in jest that too much politics rots the brain. But I'm not really joking.

 

[DBS1970]

Too many of you on this board have been - mentally - drifting out to sea. The effects of global warming are true and real as the sun coming up in the morning. Dismiss it, ridicule it, jerk off to it. Post all the memes you want. No matter how childish you get, the fact is there is significant climate change happening on our planet right now. It's real and it's here. You can scoff all you want at the scientists, dismiss the data and continue living the alt right fairy tale. That's your choice. But know full well you are living in utter ignorance. Ignorance is bliss, I realize that.

Once again Warmist "Scientists" get caught falsifying data and you double down.

 

[Supersteeler]

Once again Warmist "Scientists" get caught falsifying data and you double down.

The MSM doesn't report such things. It allows the Liberal echo chamber to perpetuate itself. They have no idea that these idiots are getting caught doing this left and right.....and they don't want to know. It's almost kinda cute how they don't want to know anything outside their information safe zone. That would be like....all scary and stuff. It's much easier to hurl personal insults and ignore everything that destroys your credibility.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

It's that kind of "junk science" that you are falling for. Just think if I told you "no matter what happens, my theory is true". If it's warm, that's climate change. If it's cold, that's climate change. It we don't get a category 3 hurricane hit the U.S. for SEVEN YEARS, that's climate change. If we get 3 category hurricanes in one year, that's climate change. Polar vortex is climate change. If the earth finds ways to adjust or absorb CO2 in ways the scientists never thought of, that's climate change. El Nina's are climate change. El Nino's are climate change. Fires are climate change.

True story. Back in 2005 the Steelers had lost four in a row in the middle of the season and it was looking like playoff hopes were lost. I normally make hot wings for the game. I said this is getting bad, I need to change the mojo, so one week I decided to bake the wings instead of deep frying. That week they played Da Bears, Bettis runs over Urlacher, and they win every game from then on all the way to the Super Bowl. I figure that I'm on to something, so every since then I cook the wings one way until a loss, then the next time I change. There is just as much evidence that my wing cooking methods help the Steelers as there is that humans cause global warming. B follows A, therefore A caused B. (I minored in Philosophy in college.)

Tibs, do you ever honestly wonder why the left NEVER says that big government is bad? Even though time and time again that is proven much more prevalent than what big businesses do, or big oil, or big pharma?

The Left has their proscribed best way for people to live and need a large overreaching centralized government staffed with like-minded people to do that. There are a whole lot more Lois Lerners in the government. If the Dems/Left are out of power and don't have access to the switches and levers of government for the purposes of social engineering, then they have no reason to live. It's why they go apeshit when W. Boosh or Trump wins and the GOP controls Congress. Upside, it looks like the public outside of the Northeast and West Coast are on to this and have had enough of expensive funny-looking light bulbs, toilets that don't flush, washers that don't wash, and spill-proof gas cans that spill gas all over. Hence Trump. The only way I think for the Dems/Left to win in large numbers again is to dial it back a bit but at this point I don't think they know how to do that. The general attitude seems to be when they lose that they didn't do enough Leftism so they'll double down on more taxes, more spending, more government, and more control.

 

[SteelChip]

You are being an a-typical Lib there Tibsy....Liberal anti-religion, elitist, pro-redistribution rhetoric has been tried before and proven ineffectual toward educated individuals not sequestered in their parents basement..

 

[Steeltime]

Too many of you on this board have been - mentally - drifting out to sea. The effects of global warming are true and real as the sun coming up in the morning. Dismiss it, ridicule it, jerk off to it. Post all the memes you want. No matter how childish you get, the fact is there is significant climate change happening on our planet right now. It's real and it's here. You can scoff all you want at the scientists, dismiss the data and continue living the alt right fairy tale. That's your choice. But know full well you are living in utter ignorance. Ignorance is bliss, I realize that.

Climate change does NOT equal AGW, Tibs. The question is not, and has never been, "Is the climate changing?" The climate has warmed since the Little Ice Age.

The question, and remains, "To what extent have CO2 emissions from petroleum use contributed to that climate change?" That, my friend, is the question. Climate believers insist that the warming over the past 100 years has been due mainly (exclusively, some argue) to fossil fuel use. They rely on climate models as to what should have happened vs. what actually happened.

But that is where they have been caught falsifying and hiding data, Tibs. You argue that only a fool denies "climate change." Okay. But only someone completely blind to the facts ignores that climate scientists have lied and falsified data and hid data and manipulated data, and further only someone ignorant of the facts denies that the climate models have been wrong. Vastly wrong for the most part, in that the models have grossly overestimated the expected temperature increases based on the CO2 levels. To wit:

So I post this data, and am met with elfie's typical response: "Oh, Christy is a lying shill for the petroleum industry, his graph is false, ARRGH ..."

And I have to spend the time researching and completely refuting every contrary claim. Christy is a highly-decorated and qualified climate scientist. He is most definitely NOT employed by or for the petroleum industry. His figures are 100% valid and based on climate models (all linked), and actual temperature data from two very credible and reliable sources, HADCRUT4 and lower Troposphere temperature measurements.

So Tibs, with all due respect* to your warnings about "climate change," I respond for probably the 10th time by asking:

1. What is the expected temperature increase over the next 100 years due to fossil fuel use?
2. What is the basis for such expected temperature increase, and what reliability has that climate model shown?
3. What is the cost for avoiding fossil fuel use? Seriously, how many billions or trillions of dollars are implicated?
4. Who pays that cost?

So convince me that a climate model is worth spending $10 trillion or whatever that number is to change how we live our lives. And the argument, "Oh, we are all doomed if we don't, so the cost is irrelevant!!" is a phony argument and a logical fallacy known as "begging the question."

* Oh, and the phrase "with all due respect" means something different.

 

[IndySteel]

-11 this morning with -28 wind chill.


**** off, Algore.

 

[Tibs]

So Tibs, with all due respect* to your warnings about "climate change," I respond for probably the 10th time by asking:

I for one trust what our scientists are telling us, at NASA for instance.

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20[SUP]th[/SUP] century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.[SUP]1
[/SUP]
Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.[SUP]2[/SUP] Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.[SUP]3[/SUP]

 

[Sarge]

I am wondering who was monitoring atmospheric carbon dioxide levels 400,000 years ago. Dude was WAY ahead of his time. Lucky NASA was able to find that research.

 

[Tibs]

And these simple facts, again, from NASA:

The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:

---

Global temperature rise

• The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.[SUP]5[/SUP] Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months. [SUP]6 [/SUP] + more

---

Warming oceans

• The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.[SUP]7[/SUP] + more

---

Shrinking ice sheets

• The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005. Image: Flowing meltwater from the Greenland ice sheet + more

---

Glacial retreat

• Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.[SUP]9 [/SUP] Image: The disappearing snowcap of Mount Kilimanjaro, from space. + more

---

Decreased snow cover

• Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.[SUP]15[/SUP]+ more

---

Sea level rise

• Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century.[SUP]4[/SUP] Image: Republic of Maldives: Vulnerable to sea level rise + more

---

Declining Arctic sea ice

• Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.[SUP]8[/SUP] Image: Visualization of the 2012 Arctic sea ice minimum, the lowest on record + more

---

Extreme events

• The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.[SUP]10[/SUP]+ more

---

Ocean acidification

• Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.[SUP]11,[/SUP][SUP]12[/SUP] This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.[SUP]13,[/SUP][SUP]14[/SUP]

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

 

[Tibs]

What can be done about it? I don't know. What I do know is pretending this is not real and not a problem seems like a self-defeating proposition.

 

[deljzc]

What can be done about it? I don't know. What I do know is pretending this is not real and not a problem seems like a self-defeating proposition.

But I don't see any "problem" that can't be just engineered away or adapted to. That's my issue.

The left's answer is "make energy more expensive so alternative sources can compete financially" (even though alternative sources can't possibly be used exclusively). I don't agree with this course of action Tibs and I never will.

Not only is the leftism in America and Europe arguing that they should increase energy prices on THEIR citizens, they are also arguing that the U.S. and Europe should SEND MONEY to Africa, India, Southeast Asia and the Middle East to counteract the increase in energy costs of alternative vs. fossil fuels.

Do you really believe this is the answer to climate change? And do you really think these policies would make a difference? Because I don't. But God forbid if I disagree with these stupid policies, I'm labeled a climate denier.

The models every scare tactic climate scientist has used since the mid 1990's has not come true. Actual readings have ALWAYS been under. Yet, I'm supposed to start believing them now? That there is some cliff we can't come back from? Seriously?

Low energy costs SAVE LIVES. Maybe that's not really important to you. Maybe you don't care that giving sewage systems, clean water, wells, the ability to work longer hours, heating/cooling to millions of people in China and India and Africa will save millions of lives. Millions. Maybe billions.

More people are saved because of access to energy and how they use it to improve their infrastructure than because of any other thing. More than medicine (which needs energy too by the way).

There is no cliff. There is no "point of no return" because there is no static climate point to "return to". All we can do as humanity is adapt. Migrate if we must. Try to save animals and plants if we can. Re-build smarter. Continue to engineer our way to prosperity. Let human ingenuity be our guide.

CO2 is NOT POLLUTION. It doesn't cause asthma. It doesn't cause health problems. It doesn't poison water or kill the environment. Pollution is an enemy to fight (in excessive amounts) and discuss.

Eventually, science WILL discover a way to make alternative sources of energy cheaper. Maybe even better. But today is not that day. Not yet. Let the process work itself out. Government's roll is always to ensure a fair fight but stay out of the way of progress.

But when governments start to push the scales in what they think is "social engineering", especially at the cost of my country, I'm skeptical. And you should be too.

 

[Tibs]

Eventually, science WILL discover a way to make alternative sources of energy cheaper. Maybe even better. But today is not that day. Not yet.

That is simply not true. Technological advancement in alternative energy is happening around the world. Why do you want the US to fall behind?

Read some of these articles:

Germany set to pay customers for electricity usage as renewable energy generation creates huge power surplus
http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...r-surplus-wind-solar-generation-a8022576.html

This German village generates 500% more energy than it needs
https://inhabitat.com/german-village-produces-500-of-its-energy-from-renewable-sources/

Shenzhen Completes Switch To Fully Electric Bus Fleet. Electric Taxis Are Next.
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/0...fully-electric-bus-fleet-electric-taxis-next/

Shenzhen, located just north of Hong Kong, is home to BYD, which happens to build electric vehicles, including buses. With a population approaching 12 million, Shenzhen has a lot of buses — 16,359 of them, to be precise — and as of this moment, every one of them is electric.

If 16,359 buses sounds like a lot, that’s because it is. As shared by our friend and contributor Tim Dixon on EV Obsession, that’s approximately 3 times as many buses as New York City has in its fleet (all buses), and nearly 8 times the total Los Angeles has (see chart on right).

Of course, none of those electric vehicles are worth anything if they can’t be recharged conveniently. Over the past few years, the city of Shenzhen has built 300 bus chargers and installed 8,000 streetlight poles that double as charging stations for electric cars. The bus chargers can replenish the battery in an electric bus in about two hours.

None of this happens without money. In 2017 alone, the city put up almost $500 million to promote the adoption of electric buses and installation of charging infrastructure.

The reason for the push is twofold. First, Shenzhen, like many Chinese cities, suffers from crippling air pollution. Second, electric buses are much cheaper to operate than their diesel-powered cousins. “The wide use of electric buses and cabs plays a significant role in improving air quality and constructing a beautiful Shenzhen,” said Lou Heru, vice head of the city’s transport commission. Third, Shenzhen is home to BYD.

The all-electric bus fleet is expected to save the equivalent of 345,000 tons of diesel fuel and reduce carbon emissions by 1.35 million tons. Electricity costs about one third what diesel fuel costs in the area. The electric taxis are expected to save another 116,000 tons of diesel. There is a third benefit that flows from using electric buses and taxis as well — a much quieter city. Quality of life issues may not have a specific price tag, but not listening to the roar of diesel engines all day every day has to be a plus on anyone’s list.

I never understood the anger and outrage over alternative energy solutions. America was always on the cutting edge of technology and innovation, but is sadly being left behind, as you guys cry over Al Gore and other boogeymen. You think finding ways to lower pollution and carbon emmisions and implementing alternative energy solutions is a liberal, leftist idea? That's ******* nuts. It's not a political issue, it's a pragmatic one.

 

[Steeltime]

I for one trust what our scientists are telling us, at NASA for instance.

Again, you avoid the questions. Your information - the accuracy of which I do not dispute - fails to answer ANY question. Once again:

1. What warming is due to the burning of fossil fuels?
2. What is the basis for such conclusion, and what reliability has that method shown when tested?
3. How much will it cost - how many trillions of dollars - to convert to an alternative energy source to replace the cheapest, most efficient source we have now?
4. Who will pay that cost?

What does NASA say to those questions??

 

[Tibs]

Again, you avoid the questions. Your information - the accuracy of which I do not dispute - fails to answer ANY question. Once again:

1. What warming is due to the burning of fossil fuels?
2. What is the basis for such conclusion, and what reliability has that method shown when tested?

I believe you'll find some answers here:

Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

3. How much will it cost - how many trillions of dollars - to convert to an alternative energy source to replace the cheapest, most efficient source we have now?
4. Who will pay that cost?
What does NASA say to those questions??

I have no idea.

 

[deljzc]

That is simply not true. Technological advancement in alternative energy is happening around the world. Why do you want the US to fall behind?

Read some of these articles:

Germany set to pay customers for electricity usage as renewable energy generation creates huge power surplus
http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...r-surplus-wind-solar-generation-a8022576.html

This German village generates 500% more energy than it needs
https://inhabitat.com/german-village-produces-500-of-its-energy-from-renewable-sources/

Shenzhen Completes Switch To Fully Electric Bus Fleet. Electric Taxis Are Next.
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/0...fully-electric-bus-fleet-electric-taxis-next/



I never understood the anger and outrage over alternative energy solutions. America was always on the cutting edge of technology and innovation, but is sadly being left behind, as you guys cry over Al Gore and other boogeymen. You think finding ways to lower pollution and carbon emmisions and implementing alternative energy solutions is a liberal, leftist idea? That's ******* nuts. It's not a political issue, it's a pragmatic one.

If what is happening in Germany is the result of market forces and not political forces, that's great. If it's really as "inexpensive" as those articles make it out to be, that's great too (I think there is some hidden costs in there).

I know for a fact U.S. electric companies buy-back energy too if you choose to invest in solar panels on your house. Or at least can reduce your electric bill to zero. But the only way many of those solar panels become cost effective was because the government (i.e. taxpayers) were paying them to do it with discounts and tax breaks.

I mean, I think every house in the southwest should have solar panels. I really do. But I don't want my government to tell me that. That should be a decision that just makes sense financially to home builders and how to sell houses.

This isn't PRO-fossil fuel or ANTI-alternative energy. I'm pro energy. However and wherever it is (within reason) with as little government intervention as possible. I don't know why that's so hard to comprehend.

What the Paris Climate Accord was is foolish and wasn't going to change the habits of the two leading (and two projected HUGE) producers of pollution and CO2, which are India and China (and SE Asia, as a whole, is close behind).

And I'm confused why you think Trump's energy plan (which is to take government out of the energy decision making process) means U.S. energy companies are "falling behind" with alternative research? Where are the facts in that conclusion? You don't think Exxon is researching alternative energy sources?

Just another example that you think Government has to be the cause of all things good. That government has to be the "father/mother" figure to encourage good behavior, tell us kids what to research (for the betterment of humanity), tell us kids how to spend our money.

That's just hogwash and you know it.

 

[Superman]

And these simple facts, again, from NASA:


[/LIST]

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

I won't dispute the idea of sheets of ice melting, and ocean temperatures rising, nor sea levels rising, but I would like to pose another idea:

we're well aware that the planet rotates on an axis. ever take a top and spin it? similar idea here. eventually, the top's axis will move. I'm curious as to if this is what is happening to our planet. we can see the axis on a top move quickly since it's observable. and can be repeated numerous times. has the axis been checked to see if the planet has shifted even minutely? that could very easily result in exactly what the NASA report is stating. and, keep in mind we're also seeing some land formations rising. we're also uncovering fossils in places were previously did not expect to find fossils.

so, to sum, the science we have now will absolutely be out-dated in 5-10 years as we learn more about the planet. we should also understand that the solar system is not stagnant and is moving through space. thus, we could have gone through some cosmic dust/weather that very well could have effected the planet.

 

[Supersteeler]

I won't dispute the idea of sheets of ice melting, and ocean temperatures rising, nor sea levels rising, but I would like to pose another idea:

we're well aware that the planet rotates on an axis. ever take a top and spin it? similar idea here. eventually, the top's axis will move. I'm curious as to if this is what is happening to our planet. we can see the axis on a top move quickly since it's observable. and can be repeated numerous times. has the axis been checked to see if the planet has shifted even minutely? that could very easily result in exactly what the NASA report is stating. and, keep in mind we're also seeing some land formations rising. we're also uncovering fossils in places were previously did not expect to find fossils.

so, to sum, the science we have now will absolutely be out-dated in 5-10 years as we learn more about the planet. we should also understand that the solar system is not stagnant and is moving through space. thus, we could have gone through some cosmic dust/weather that very well could have effected the planet.

Climate Scientists response to this: "That's just great, just how in the hell can we get a 10 million dollar grant if we can't promise to make it go away and shame people for destroying the planet?"

 

[Spike]

Brutal cold torments the US, and 'the worst is yet to come'

The brutal chill that froze much of the country on New Year's Day will get even more miserable later this week. "The cold is here to stay and the worst is yet to come," CNN meteorologist Taylor Ward said.

More than 100 million people from Canada to Mexico are under wind chill warnings and advisories on Tuesday

On New Year's Day, 90% of the US failed to warm up to 32 degrees

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/02/us/cold-weather-continues/index.html

 

[Spike]

meanwhile, back in Erie

 

[Booted]

 

[Steeltime]

I believe you'll find some answers here:

Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

Your link/citation does not work, Tibs. Inputted into the data bar ... nothing. Googled it ... zip. Did find the following comments/articles/references in the IPCC report for 2014:

Related Articles:

Open Access
Teaching global climate change
Alan H. McGowan
DOI: 10.4236/ns.2013.51A018 Pub. Date: January 31, 2013
4,145 Downloads 6,200 Views Citations

Open Access
Christocentric Ecotheology and Climate Change
Ezichi A. Ituma
DOI: 10.4236/ojpp.2013.31A021 Pub. Date: February 25, 2013
2,886 Downloads 4,025 Views

Open Access
Climate Change Challenges to Accounting
Constancio Zamora Ramírez, José María González González
DOI: 10.4236/lce.2013.41003 Pub. Date: March 27, 2013
4,652 Downloads 7,763 Views Citations

Open Access
Climate change and the conservation of marmots
Kenneth B. Armitage
DOI: 10.4236/ns.2013.55A005 Pub. Date: May 28, 2013
4,383 Downloads 6,447 Views Citations

http://www.scirp.org/(S(i43dyn45tee...nce/ReferencesPapers.aspx?ReferenceID=1895519

Jesus-*******-Christ, and you wonder why educated, intelligent Americans wonder what the **** is going on with those cockholsters running the IPCC??