Global warming

[Necropostophiliac]

How does this not imply climate change?

The new mantra from the far left, now that Al Gore and his minions
have failed, expect him, with his multiply billions from his sell out, and a
no disgust about his 1 per cent status and obvious Hippocratic ways.

Global warming has failed, so now it is "Climate Change".

How is the volunteer lobotomy going?

 

[The Other Side]

That is funny weather channel said it only got up to 79 on Feb 14,2014

http://www.weather.com/weather/monthly/USCA0638

OOPS. looks like you got it wrong again.

TOS.

 

[upschuck]

OOPS. looks like you got it wrong again.

TOS.

How so?

 

[oldngray]

How so?

a TOS button?

 

[roadrunner2012]

Who measured the carbon millions of years ago...ladies and gents we have another one.

Scientists.

This graph puts it all together. It is a record of the concentration of carbon dioxide during the past four ice ages. The data comes from air bubbles trapped in ice taken from a two kilometer hole drilled into the Antarctic ice sheet. It is like the preceding Keeling curve except that it extends 415,000 years back in time instead of 50 years. The Keeling curve has been added to the right side as indicated by the black and red. The horizontal scale prevents showing any detail.

At 400 PPM, the amount of carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere is unprecedented, at least in the past 415,000 years. The last time it reached even 300 PPM was 325,000 years ago.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is strongly correlated to temperature and glaciation. The record is jagged, but it is easy to see patterns. When the concentration is below 240 PPM, kilometers thick glaciers cover most of Europe, Canada and the northern part of the United States. There are 4 ice ages recorded here. Note that temperatures decrease irregularly over a span of approximately 100,000 years while temperature increases are sudden and dramatic. We live in an era just after a rapid temperature increase.

 

[oldngray]

That graph tends to disprove global warming alarmists. Very similar repeat cycles occurring on that graph so recent warming should have been predicted from past data.

 

[roadrunner2012]

That graph tends to disprove global warming alarmists. Very similar repeat cycles occurring on that graph so recent warming should have been predicted from past data.

Does it? It would seem to indicate that temperatures are rising at an unprecedented rate.

Science, you know.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-dioxide-concentration-400-parts-per-million/

It’s possible the current CO2 levels haven’t been matched in millions of years. Scripps Institution of Oceanography estimates the last time the concentration was at least 400 ppm occurred 5 to 3 million years ago, during the Pliocene Epoch.


Carbon dioxide is a heat trapping greenhouse gas and its inexorable rise in recent history coupled with an increase in the Earth’s temperature raise concerns about human interference with the climate system and where temperatures and sea levels may be headed.


During the Pliocene Epoch, temperatures were 5-7 degrees friend warmer than today and sea levels were many feet higher, Scripps says.

 

[MAKAVELI]

That graph tends to disprove global warming alarmists. Very similar repeat cycles occurring on that graph so recent warming should have been predicted from past data.

Conclusion

If present trends continue, Earth's climate will be very different 100 years from now. Nearly all of the world's scientists agree on this. The only disagreement is about the amount and the rate of change.

Climatology is a very complex subject and the preceding is only a foretaste. An indepth report, written by 2,500 scientists from around the world, is available if you want to know more. http://www.ipcc.ch/ The report was written by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

 

[Jones]

Apparently Bill Nye (the science guy) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) are going to discuss climate change on Meet the Press tomorrow morning. Might be mildly entertaining.

 

[moreluck]

Right now (4:00 PM), it's 79 and sunny at Pendleton.

Climate change already has a name...Seasons!!

 

[roadrunner2012]

Apparently Bill Nye (the science guy) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) are going to discuss climate change on Meet the Press tomorrow morning. Might be mildly entertaining.

Apart from the fact that Bill Nye is not a climatologist and Marsha Blackburn is a denier and David Gregory is a tool.


Meh.

 

[wkmac]

Apparently Bill Nye (the science guy) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) are going to discuss climate change on Meet the Press tomorrow morning. Might be mildly entertaining.

They say the same about plucking butt hairs. Think I'll skip both and find something more productive. After the ice and snow, got some greenhouse maintenance to do which should be perfect.

 

[av8torntn]

Conclusion

If present trends continue, Earth's climate will be very different 100 years from now. Nearly all of the world's scientists agree on this. The only disagreement is about the amount and the rate of change.

Climatology is a very complex subject and the preceding is only a foretaste. An indepth report, written by 2,500 scientists from around the world, is available if you want to know more. http://www.ipcc.ch/ The report was written by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

One thing is certain. That report can be termed many things but scientific is not one of them.

 

[MAKAVELI]

One thing is certain. That report can be termed many things but scientific is not one of them.

I don't know what report you read but this one http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/mindex.shtml is nothing but science. I guess the right doesn't believe in that mumbo jumbo.

 

[av8torntn]

The thing is you don't have to read the report(I'm sure you didn't) you can just read what the people that wrote the report said about it.

Phil Jones(a lead author of the report) said this.

"I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working on AR5 would be to delete all e-mails at the end of the process. Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Department of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data."

Not sure where you studied science, but by definition that is not scientific.

He also said this about your "scientific" report.

"Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds. …what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene! I reckon this can be saved by careful wording."

Tom Wigley of NCAR said this of your report.

"Mike, the Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC."

Jonathan Overpeck, a coordinating lead IPCC report author, stated referring to the report: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.”

You may call that scientific but I certainly do not.

It goes on and on and on. You'd think the statists would scurry away after they were exposed but you guys keep trying I'll give you credit for that.

Michael Mann about the realclimate.org site “… the important thing is to make sure they’re [the skeptics are] lo[o]sing the PR battle. That’s what the site [RealClimate.org] is about.”


The facts just happen to be that nothing about Global Warming oops Global Cooling oops I mean Climate Change are scientific. It's little more than a get rich quick scam believed by some simple minded folk.

 

[MAKAVELI]

The thing is you don't have to read the report(I'm sure you didn't) you can just read what the people that wrote the report said about it.

Phil Jones(a lead author of the report) said this.

"I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working on AR5 would be to delete all e-mails at the end of the process. Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Department of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data."

Not sure where you studied science, but by definition that is not scientific.

He also said this about your "scientific" report.

"Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds. …what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene! I reckon this can be saved by careful wording."

Tom Wigley of NCAR said this of your report.

"Mike, the Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC."

Jonathan Overpeck, a coordinating lead IPCC report author, stated referring to the report: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.”

You may call that scientific but I certainly do not.

It goes on and on and on. You'd think the statists would scurry away after they were exposed but you guys keep trying I'll give you credit for that.

Michael Mann about the realclimate.org site “… the important thing is to make sure they’re [the skeptics are] lo[o]sing the PR battle. That’s what the site [RealClimate.org] is about.”


The facts just happen to be that nothing about Global Warming oops Global Cooling oops I mean Climate Change are scientific. It's little more than a get rich quick scam believed by some simple minded folk.

Took you a while to dig all that crap up ? The point is it doesn't really matter how much scientific data or common sense there is on human activity affecting our planet. The right will come up with a thousand excuses and conspiracy theories to justify polluting this planet in the name of $. It doesn't take a scientist to see what we are doing but when the science is proven, it's a conspiracy. Drill baby drill!

 

[av8torntn]

Took you a while to dig all that crap up ? The point is it doesn't really matter how much scientific data or common sense there is on human activity affecting our planet. The right will come up with a thousand excuses and conspiracy theories to justify polluting this planet in the name of $. It doesn't take a scientist to see what we are doing but when the science is proven, it's a conspiracy. Drill baby drill!

The problem is what I posted is true and you just come up with slogans. If you guys could come up with actual scientific data that may be a different story but you didn't and don't.

As an aside it's more than a little funny that it was the Russians that derailed your global warming hopes and you stillwant to blame the right. A little ironic I guess.

 

[MAKAVELI]

The problem is what I posted is true and you just come up with slogans. If you guys could come up with actual scientific data that may be a different story but you didn't and don't.

As an aside it's more than a little funny that it was the Russians that derailed your global warming hopes and you stillwant to blame the right. A little ironic I guess.

What you posted is true because you say it is with no scientific data to back your claims. It is you and your republican brethren trying to peddle propaganda to the masses. Drill baby drill!

 

[av8torntn]

What you posted is true because you say it is with no scientific data to back your claims. It is you and your republican brethren trying to peddle propaganda to the masses. Drill baby drill!

I just quoted your weather heros and you're all mad. That's so sweet.

 

[MAKAVELI]

I just quoted your weather heros and you're all mad. That's so sweet.

The same old propaganda with no facts. That's so sad.