Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Saturday, November 15, 2008

An abnormally cool Arctic is seeing dramatic changes to ice levels. In sharp contrast to the rapid melting seen last year, the amount of global sea ice has rebounded sharply and is now growing rapidly. The total amount of ice, which set a record low value last year, grew in October at the fastest pace since record-keeping began in 1979.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

Iraqibukkake

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

BUT BUT BUT Zatoichi says the Ice is melting. He wouldn't be full of shit now would He??

Larry

"Zatoichi says the Ice is melting."

It's Winter in the Northern hemisphere, dipshit.

This was predicted.

"An expected paradox: Autumn warmth and ice growth "

"As is normal for this time of year, ice extent increased rapidly through most of October. However, this year, the increase was particularly fast, which contributed to above-average air temperatures near the surface. A look back at the entire melt season from March through October reveals that the Arctic sea ice is showing some unusual changes in growth and melt cycles."

nsidc.org

It's still well below average.

nsidc.org

But note the time rate of change.

Higher-than-average air temperatures

Over much of the Arctic, especially over the Arctic Ocean, air temperatures were unusually high. Near-surface air temperatures in the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska were more than 7 degrees Celsius (13 degrees Fahrenheit) above normal and the warming extended well into higher levels of the atmosphere. These warm conditions are consistent with rapid ice growth.

The freezing temperature of saline water is slightly lower than it is for fresh water, about 2 degrees Celsius (28 degrees Fahrenheit). While surface air temperatures in the Beaufort Sea region are well below freezing by late September, before sea ice can start to grow, the ocean must lose the heat it gained during the summer. One way the ocean does this is by transferring its heat to the atmosphere. This heat transfer is largely responsible for the anomalously high (but still below freezing) air temperatures over the Arctic Ocean seen in Figure 3. Only after the ocean loses its heat and cools to the freezing point, can ice begin to form. The process of ice formation also releases heat to the atmosphere. Part of the anomalous temperature pattern seen in Figure 3 is an expression of this process, which is generally called the latent heat of fusion.

In the past five years, the Arctic has shown a pattern of strong low-level atmospheric warming over the Arctic Ocean in autumn because of heat loss from the ocean back to the atmosphere. Climate models project that this atmospheric warming, known as Arctic amplification, will become more prominent in coming decades and extend into the winter season. As larger expanses of open water are left at the end of each melt season, the ocean will continue to hand off heat to the atmosphere.

nsidc.org

Near-record October growth rates

As mentioned above, unusually high air temperatures go hand-in-hand with the rapid increase in ice extent seen through most of the month of October.

At its fastest point on October 15, the 2008 ice growth exceeded the 2007 growth rate on the same date by 92,000 square kilometers (36,000 square miles) per day. The near-record daily growth rate slowed toward the end of the month and has now fallen below the 2007 growth rate. It is important to reiterate this fast rate of growth is not unexpected under current conditions.

nsidc.org

Record ice loss over the 2008 melt season

As discussed in our September 16, 2008, post, this year's annual minimum represented the second-lowest point observed in the satellite record, surpassed only by the 2007 minimum. However, if we look at the total extent of ice lost between the March maximum and the September minimum, 2008 set a new record for total ice loss over an entire melt season. For more on the relatively high levels of ice that started the 2008 melt season and that led to this new record, see our April 7 post.

During the 2008 melt season, Arctic sea ice declined by 10.58 million square kilometers (4.08 million square miles). This was slightly more than the previous record for loss over an entire melt season, set in 2007, which was 10.51 million square kilometers (4.06 million square miles).

Arctic sea ice and climate are behaving in ways not seen before in the satellite recordboth in the rate and extent of ice loss during the spring and summer, and in the record ice growth rates and increased Arctic air heating during the fall and winter.

nsidc.org

DIAF Larry.

Some more of Your copy and paste BULLSHIT ehhhhhhh Zatoichi?? Why am I NOT surprised.

Larry

Read it and weep, Larry.
If you're remotely smart enough to comprehend it.

The only year there was less ice at this date was last year.

You're going to die, Larry.
You're going to die because you're stupid.
I can't think of a better reason.

The Earth's 6th Great Mass Extinction is Occurring as You Read This

www.dailygalaxy.com

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

And particularly stupid jokes like Larry will be the first to go.

Lorddddddd the same tired assed tripe from Zatoichi. It never ever fails.

You're going to die because you're stupid.
I can't think of a better reason.

I am going to die because I am a biological organism and that's what we do.

What's your excuse?

People like Zatoichi never really die they just shrivel up like a prune and dry up. If You pour water on Zatoichi in a couple hundred years the first words out of His mouth would be quit spitting on Me. Guaranteed.

Larry

"What's your excuse?"

Posted by silver_ironist

Larry is more entertaining than Survivor Vanuatu.

Yours?

Yea, maybe I can go ride on some of that extra sea ice with the nearly extinct polar bears.

Yipeee

Global warming...

Don't tell Zatoichi He still believes in this Global Warming bruhaha. It's His Religion I think.

Larry

Larry you beat me to it.

My other thought was, Oh! The poor polar bears! Now there is to much ice to swim. Now they will freeze.

Yours?

Sex, drugs and rock n roll.

I put the cigarettes down.

ZAT does much better with pictures. Maybe this will help him out...I doubt it though.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

Poor ol' ZAT is gonna sit in his scientific, peer-reviewed swimming pool freezin' his nuts and will NEVER admit there's any merit to facts like this:

www.mcclatchydc.com

Or this...

network.nationalpost.com

I guess Mother Nature got the memo that we elected Obama president of the United States. After all, in yet another one of his silly Audacity of Hope speeches, he promised that the planet would start to heal, and the oceans would cease to rise.

I always preferred warmer weather to cold, but I guess that's what you get when our messiah is from Chicago, and not Miami.

Im starting to think that Zat works for or is in some way connected to the global warming crowd or maybe he has invested all of his money in selling ice cubes to Eskimos.
What ever his problem is, he definatly can't see the forest thru the trees.

when in doubt flee to denmark. pussy.

oh wait. i forgot. a country can survive.......or flee to denmark.

"country boy"

Global warming causes global cooling.
Al Gore was right. He was he ever doubted?

Be Well.


Where is that ass hole allgore when you need him?

The total amount of ice, which set a record low value last year, grew in October at the fastest pace since record-keeping began in 1979.

Damn, with that many years of history, we realy have a handle on sea ice. What a bunch of assholes for even trying to tell us the end is near.

Data from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) shows that the year began with ice covering a larger area than at the beginning of 2007.

But now it is down to levels seen last June, at the beginning of a summer that broke records for sea ice loss.
Would the US lie?

The only thing missing is that scam artist Al Gore bellowing out thank god we've finally healed the planet. Al Gore is a scam artist as he's still pushing global warming even though evidence suggests that we are entering global cooling. The last 5 years have been cooler than normal.

I looked at that chart and what it meant by lower than average temps, it was much cooler in West Texas not that it was warmer. A normal Texas summer sees temps at 100 + from June-August. We rarely saw 100+ temps at all.

So I guess that means that ya'll can't read charts.

Lonnie

I'm sure the left will now say that the cooler temps have something to do with Obama being elected now. LMFAO. They attempted to say that gas prices lowered because Obama received his party's nomination. You guys really do need to get out more.

Lonnie

Zat, why do you waste your time trying to educate these fools? They only hear what they want to hear. No amount of hard scientific facts will change the mind of a person like LarryMohr. He is the same way with politics. Impossible to persuade a person like that of anything. Sad thing is, although he refuses to see it, there is a real correlation between the way he refuses to think and the way right wing Bushies refuse to think. No wonder so many of them seem to agree with him on this thread.

jestgettinalong,

Thanks for sharing that chart. I'm frustrated because I don't believe we understand enough about the weather but some seem to be making it up as they go along.

My beliefs are the earth rotates and the earth wobbles. The wobbles, in my opinion, influence the weather patterns. I have a hard time being told that the global warming debate is over, it's not. They haven't convinced me that they know any more than me about the weather. The chart you shared with us shows that the weather, is in fact, getting cooler.

Thanks,

Lonnie

No amount of hard scientific facts will change the mind of a person like LarryMohr. He is the same way with politics. Impossible to persuade a person like that of anything. Sad thing is, although he refuses to see it, there is a real correlation between the way he refuses to think and the way right wing Bushies refuse to think. No wonder so many of them seem to agree with him on this thread.

Posted by moder8 at 2008-11-15 04:32 PM | Reply

Hey prove Me wrong and then I might think different' All Zatoichi has shown Me was His ass and it wasn't inviting. Prove this Global Warming is True and I will shut up. Until then Kindly STFU Moder8.

Larry

"I will shut up."

A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system
Roger Pielke Sr
Physics Today, November 2008, page 54

ptonline.aip.org

Conclusions

Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of CO2. Significant, societally important climate change on the regional and local scales, due to both natural and human climate forcings, can occur due to these diverse influences. The result of the more complex interference of humans in the climate system is that attempts to significantly influence regional and local-scale climate based on controlling CO2 emissions alone is an inadequate policy for this purpose. There is a need to minimize the human disturbance of the climate by limiting the amount of CO2 that is emitted into the atmosphere by human activities, but the diversity of human climate forcings should not be ignored.


Roger Pielke Sr is senior research scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, senior research associate in the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and professor emeritus in the department of atmospheric science at Colorado State University at Fort Collins.


References

1. 1. IPCC Summary for Policymakers (2007), [LINK].
2. 2. National Research Council, Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change and Climate Research Committee, Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: Expanding the Concept and Addressing Uncertainties, National Academies Press, Washington, DC (2005).
3. 3. R. A. Pielke Sr et al., J. Geophys. Res. 112, D24S08 (2007) [SPIN].
4. 4. R. A. Pielke Sr, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 331 (2003) [INSPEC].
5. 5. J. K. Willis, D. P. Chambers, R. S. Nerem, J. Geophys. Res. (Oceans) 113, C06015 (2008).
6. 6. J. Hansen et al., Science 308, 1431 (2005) [INSPEC].
7. 7. R. A. Pielke Sr, Science 310, 1625 (2005) [MEDLINE].
8. 8. T. Matsui, R. A. Pielke Sr, Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L11813 (2006) [SPIN].

zat, come on dude that's not proof. larry wants proof dammit, PROOF. just pointing out that statistically temp are the rise, sea ice is melting and causing a rise in ocean levels. and then listing your references is nothing. you seem elitist, your obviously educated.
you need to prove to lar that warmer temps cause ice to melt cause he just don't believe it. jeesh. otherwise he's gonna sit in his trailer in kansas wondering where toto is.

look under your ass larry.

Zatopichi I don't care what some scientist says. They have been saying one4 thing then another for Years. It's BULLSHIT zatoichi on the highest order. If Global Warming were real we would be gradually getting warmer and not cooler. I know the facts don't support some balderdash Scientist Peer reviewed bullshit. They say we have warmed 1 degree in 150 Years if we are to believe scietists that is. Which means no global warming dumbass. When I go out in the middle of winter I expect warmer tempratures if gloobal warming is real and fact. It doesn't. You know we had 47 days straight of record 100+ degree temps back in 1980. We haven't had that since. Hell even this past summer was one of the coolest around here. Like I said don't whistle dixie prove Global Warming is real and indeed fact. Trouble is You can't zatoichi.

Larry

Oh and what is peer reviewed anyway?? Is it where some of tyhe scietist that agree with each other look over each others work and declare it peer reviewed?? Like I said prove it. PROVE IT ZATOICHI. Trouble is You can't. You can declare speculations and assumptions. I can speculate all day long doesn't make it true.

Larry

Where's Gore

Oh and what is peer reviewed anyway??

Larry

Lar,
this one sentence says it all. now zat has put something forth, it's up to you to prove him wrong, ding-a-ling.

the real trouble is you can't.

i take what zat a whole lot more serious than what comes out of your pie hole.

why don't you do yourself a favor and find out what peer reviewing is, the process, and why it's necessary instead of making yourself look challenged.

" They say we have warmed 1 degree in 150 Years "

Not real bright, are you Larry?


www.usgcrp.gov

"Over much of the Arctic, especially over the Arctic Ocean, air temperatures were unusually high. Near-surface air temperatures in the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska were more than 7 degrees Celsius (13 degrees Fahrenheit) above normal and the warming extended well into higher levels of the atmosphere. These warm conditions are consistent with rapid ice growth."

nsidc.org


Temperature record: data.giss.nasa.gov

Worldwide Dec-Aug average temp 1881-1891 56.8F.
Worldwide Dec-Aug average temp 1998-2008 58.3F.

Least squares fit to the whole record: +.0116 F/yr
Least squares fit to the last decade: +.0069 F/yr.

i take what zat a whole lot more serious than what comes out of your pie hole.
* * * *

I'll assume, then, that you don't drive a car, and that you don't burn fossil fuels.

Larry doesn't believe in global warming, and lives accordingly. Same as me. You do believe in global warming, but expect everyone else to change the way they live.

Park your cars, bitches, then I might listen.

Not real bright, are you Larry?

zat

zat i would have ended that with a period to make it a statement. now larry can answer, you know in his mind he's a super smart.

"Oh and what is peer reviewed anyway??

i can't get over that.

Please reply LM. I want to laugh at you some more.


"Peer-reviewed" means that other scientists who believe in the same things you do are willing to check off on your work, ensuring it complies with the orthodoxy of the day. A generation or two back, there was plenty of peer-reviewed literature attesting to global cooling, and the virtues of eugenics.

rir,
i do have a car, but i take public transportation. i'm oncall 24 7 so i need a vehicle as catching the bus at 2am isn't always possible. i also recycle, which in turn allows me to throw one 12 gallon bag of trash in the dump every two weeks. I also have a compost pile that i throw everything bio-degradable in. i also grow my own veggies in my own garden in the backyard. i try to buy groceries that are produced within 100 miles of my address (farmer's markets etc) to reduce the fuel consumed in shipping. my furnace is set to 63 while i'm at home at 60 while i'm at work, put on a sweater if your cold. i very rarely run the ac, 2 days last summer. i purchase all of my electricity from a wind source that my utility offers. it costs more but i'm ok with that. i'm now buying some clothes from the local goodwill, more recycling. my dishwasher detergent is phosphate free. i practice "when it yellow let it mellow..." to reduce my water consumption.

living green isn't just parking your car dumbass.

""Peer-reviewed" means that other scientists who believe in the same things you do are willing to check off on your work, ensuring it complies with the orthodoxy of the day. A generation or two back, there was plenty of peer-reviewed literature attesting to global cooling, and the virtues of eugenics."

Is larry and rir brothers from the same sister?

Larry doesn't believe in global warming, and lives accordingly. Same as me. You do believe in global warming, but expect everyone else to change the way they live.


Park your cars, bitches, then I might listen.

Posted by rightisright at 2008-11-15 07:24 PM | Reply


EXACTLY RIGHT. I do not believe in Global Warming bedcausxe it's Bunk. These Yahoos do however. I ain't condemning them I just want some concrete proof. As of yet I have only received what Scietist have said. I can say I am a movie star and it wouldn't make it true.. I swear someday they will wake up and smell reality.

Larry

"Larry doesn't believe in global warming, and lives accordingly. Same as me. You do believe in global warming, but expect everyone else to change the way they live.

Park your cars, bitches, then I might listen.

#42 | Posted by rightisright "

Oh there's that tiresome ad hominem argument that RightisLoser specializes in.

If you don't walk to work or ride a bicycle, you're a hypocrite.

If you don't make your home a homeless shelter, you're a hypocrite. And so on and so forth.

If there weren't countervailing mechanisms to warming, or ice ages, we wouldn't be here. That is what makes our planet so marvelously different from the others.

and "check out the big brain on larry" won't stop...
"EXACTLY RIGHT. I do not believe in Global Warming bedcausxe it's Bunk. These Yahoos do however. I ain't condemning them I just want some concrete proof. As of yet I have only received what Scietist have said. I can say I am a movie star and it wouldn't make it true.. I swear someday they will wake up and smell reality."

tell me big brian larry, what does reality smell like? does it smell like pussy or some of the funky skunky i'm trying to score?

or does it smell like your trailer? you know that smell, you smell it each morning, or afternoon i guess, when you get up.

Boy this is a waste of My precious time. Until You can Prove it and I don't want what some scietist says I want concrete proof. Until then it's all bunk.

Larry

Facts? FACTS? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN FACTS! What do a bunch of egghead SCIENTISTS really know anyway? Just putting on airs thinking they are better than us. It was a hot day today in SoCal. In November! So that proves GW is a lie.

Fuckin scientists.

brilliant, don't try with a counter arguement just say prove it to me then claim one can't and then run.

and i really doubt your time is precious.

"Until You can Prove it and I don't want what some scietist says I want concrete proof. Until then it's all bunk."

Gravity has never been "proven." It is still a theory.

Still, I'm not planning on testing it anytime soon.

Hans

ts, hans. larry obviously doesn't believe that gravity exists either.

"Until You can Prove it and I don't want what some scietist says I want concrete proof. Until then it's all bunk."

Oh nooees! Global warming is coming right at us!

This is just more panic driven propaganda to justify additional taxation and regulation.

"This is just more panic driven propaganda to justify additional taxation and regulation."

Yep. "Panic driven propaganda":

We're fighting them there, so we don't have to fight them here.
Hans

Here's one for you global warming nuts.


The world has never seen such freezing heat


www.telegraph.co.uk


I especially like this part,

"GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year."

"three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year."

Last year was the lowest on record, Copernicus.

nsidc.org

So much for the "warmest October on record" last month.

www.telegraph.co.uk

Temp record: data.giss.nasa.gov

Warmest Octobers on record:

Year Oct
2005 58.75
2003 58.57
2006 58.53
2007 58.53
2004 58.48
2008 58.35
1995 58.28
1998 58.24
2002 58.23
1990 58.12
2001 58.10
1988 58.05
1997 57.97
1999 57.97
1938 57.94
1943 57.83
1994 57.83
1989 57.79
1987 57.78
1885 57.70
1937 57.70

Conclusion: MAC is a liar.
What a shock.

While I'm at it, coldest Octobers on record:

year Oct average F
1886 56.03
1891 56.05
1903 56.30
1912 56.34
1917 56.39
1898 56.43
1904 56.43
1884 56.44
1897 56.46
1880 56.48
1908 56.48
1976 56.48
1892 56.50
1902 56.52
1920 56.55
1905 56.59
1964 56.59
1899 56.70
1887 56.71
1907 56.75

Zatoichi, did you get your facts from NASA?

If so I got some stock in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac I want to sell you.

"Zatoichi, did you get your facts from NASA?"

Dear dipshit, NASA got their data from me.

Happy extinction, shit-for-brains, you've earned it.

Globull Warmeng ain't good science cuz my thermemeter went up yerturday.
- Duh Right

Warmest Octobers on record:

Year Oct
2005 58.75
2003 58.57
2006 58.53
2007 58.53
2004 58.48
2008 58.35


Gee... This October was the 6th warmest October in the last 100 years? You must have missed the memorandum that this has already been debunked as relying on faulty data... a fact which Mr. Hansen at NASA tried to weasle out of then finally had to admit.

www.telegraph.co.uk

Of course this is the same Mr. Hansen that has inflated claims and been debunked before. His false claim that the 1990's were the hottest on record is one. It turns out that this particular distinction goes to the 1930's (funny then that despite supposedly constantly rising temperatures that we still haven't risen above the average temperature of 70 years ago).

I also notice that in Zat's earlier cut-and-paste, the references for the article in question include largely: The author himself (rather self-serving), Mr. Hansen (who was just mentioned), and the IPCC that gets a large part of it's data from.... Mr. Hansen.

Tell you what, Zat. Why don't you hold your breath while you wait for my extinction. We will see who becomes extinct first. Of course I will laugh about your warnings on my death bed... when I am 120 years old and you are long gone. Much as I laugh about them now.

Good link cowman.

Happy extinction, shit-for-brains, you've earned it.

#65 | Posted by Zatoichi


when he brings this oldie out it is his way of admiting that he simply wants everyone to just bow down to certain scientists and not question them.

It is very prudent to question information we get from all sides. that is what is great about this forum.....it is very childish for some to simply cast aspursions onto anybody who questions information.

The more important information is if ice is staying frozen over the warm months - not whether it freezes during the cold. Ask someone in Pangurtung Canada on Baffin Island or Inuvialuit from north eastern Alaska - the longer time to freeze up means more fall storms that have waves to pound and erode the shore line. Make no mistake - there are already forced climate change immigrants.


Zatopichi I don't care what some scientist says. They have been saying one4 thing then another for Years. It's BULLSHIT zatoichi on the highest order. If Global Warming were real we would be gradually getting warmer and not cooler. I know the facts don't support some balderdash Scientist Peer reviewed bullshit. They say we have warmed 1 degree in 150 Years if we are to believe scietists that is. Which means no global warming dumbass. When I go out in the middle of winter I expect warmer tempratures if gloobal warming is real and fact. It doesn't. You know we had 47 days straight of record 100+ degree temps back in 1980. We haven't had that since. Hell even this past summer was one of the coolest around here. Like I said don't whistle dixie prove Global Warming is real and indeed fact. Trouble is You can't zatoichi.

Larry

#37 | Posted by LarryMohr
-------------
Gee imagine that, I actually agree with Larry on something. Amazing. *Joking*

Lonnie

Point blank the collection of data for Global Warming claims have been so skewed it's not funny. There are no guidance on placement of thermometers. One of the thermeters was found in front of a AC unit. I imagine that was a warm year *Sarcasm*.

For me to take this issue seriously the following needs to happen immediately.

a. All thermometers must be placed with intelligent guidelines that must be validated before any data is taken from the thermometer. Those guidlines shall state all thermometers must be 1,000 yards away from any and all standing structures and will be re-validated once a year.

b. Both Al Gore and Robert F. Kennedy, JR will stop taking private jets anywhere and start flying commercial. I take that back, EVERY Limo Liberal needs to get rid of private jets and stop using Limo's to go everywhere. Your just blowing smoke and trying to convince us it's on fire. Also I'm sure there are idiots out there who say that Al Gore and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. are far too important to take commercial flights. Obviously you believe that because these two are cult celebrities that they have a right to leave 50-100% larger carbon footprint than I do. That is Bullshit.

c. You should have accurate data to back you up. If your saying it's warming then US charts should show warming not below average temps. This is closely tied to paragraph a.

d. The mark of a good scam is telling everyone that the debate is over. No, the debate it not over. It continues to this very day because of the skeptism I and many others like me have about this concept.

e. Peer reviewed is bullshit. Part of the peer review is having greenpeace activists who aren't fucking scientists say it's true. There is no signature required on peer review so in my mind, this doesn't give it any credibility whatsoever. You can't see who approved it. Also according to several scientists there is no place to sign on and mark approve. One guy switched sides and they still had his name as having reviewed it not having approved it. He had to take the IPP to court to have his name removed.

Don't go away mad and defeated, just go away. I'm tired of hearing the global warming arguments when I know the whole thing is shrouded in hypocracy and bullshit. Global warming is a fairy tale that Al Gore tells to his kids and grandkids. He's not made one sacrafice to his lifestyle and he only added green technologies to his estate after George Bush (Whether you like him or not) had his ranch in Texas converted. So in essence, Al Gore was shamed into sort of walking the walk.

Lonnie


Boy this is a waste of My precious time. Until You can Prove it and I don't want what some scietist says I want concrete proof. Until then it's all bunk.


Larry

#52 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2008-11-15 07:53 PM |

your "precious time" how fucking pathetic!

Ice melts every summer and freezes every winter.

Part of the computer modelled predictions include wild fluctuations.

The ice is melting so far so fast in the summer now the polar bears are leaving their traditional hunting grounds in droves and some of them have taken to mating with brown bears in the south as a survival strategy.

This is unprecedented.

Deny it all you like, MMGW/MMCC is very real.

Be Well.

The ice is melting so far so fast in the summer now the polar bears are leaving their traditional hunting grounds in droves and some of them have taken to mating with brown bears in the south as a survival strategy.

#74 | Posted by dethspud
-------------
Maybe the brown bears told them once you go brown you'll always be around?

It proves nothing. Animals really don't care about species as much as SOME humans. To prove my point, I'm sure you've been around dogs that tried to hump your leg. I'm sure you felt your leg was the blame.

Lonnie

Uh huh. If ice is melting at the fastest rate ever, it's because of global warming. If ice is freezing at the fastest rate ever, it's because of global warming. Snow in May, rain in November, ducks floating in Zat's swimming pool, record low temps in July, record high temps in July--it's all global warming.

I have an idea. If I agree that every climate condition on planet earth is caused by my SUV, will you stop using tax dollars to fund more climate research? Is that fair? I mean, godalmighty--if we already know the answer to all those questions, why bother anymore?

RIR,

Your attempting to give them more credibility than they deserve. These people thrive on telling us what we can and cannot do. I'm sure Bush gave them some satisfication by removing regular lightbulbs from the stores. They attempted to justify this move by saying the ones they want us to use will last longer.

I've already proved that line is bullshit. I bought some of those bulbs for the office and they were dead in 30 days. So instead of paying $1 something for 4 lightbulbs, now I have to spend $3 plus for one lightbulb with absolutely no guarantees that it will last longer.

Also, I refuse to seperate those bulbs when their dead. I'll throw them in the garbage like I do everything else that doesn't work.

Lonnie

I changed every bulb to CFL's over a year ago. Not a single one has burnt out yet. The light bill went down considerably as a result too. Perhaps you bought from a faulty batch or something.

Not really, I bought some for my home too and they have done a little better but I've replaced some within 3 months. Yeah the savings is just rolling in here. I bought a bulk pack from Sam's Club and of the 8 bulbs that came in that pack only 3 are left that are still working.

Lonnie

The mark of a good scam is telling everyone that the debate is over. No, the debate it not over. It continues to this very day because of the skeptism I and many others like me have about this concept.

About the smartest thing ever said on this site...

And for humans to think that we can effect anything on this planet besides nuclear weapons, we think too much of ourselves.

LWALK

I think mine are GE.

BOAZ

The massive 'brown clouds' over parts of India, China, the Pacific, and other places are definitely one example of man's actions directly affecting climate.

BEIJING(AP)


A thick brown cloud of soot, particles and chemicals stretching from the Persian Gulf to Asia threatens health and food supplies in the world, the U.N. reported Thursday, citing what it called the newest threat from global warming.

The regional haze, known as atmospheric brown clouds, contributes to the melting of Himalayan glaciers, reduces sunlight, and helps create extreme weather conditions that impact agricultural production, according to the report commissioned by the U.N. Environment Program.


Here's a NASA animation showing the location of this brown cloud:

www.nasa.gov

Stills of various Brown Clouds taken from space (take your pick):
http://images.google.com/ images?hl=en&q=picture+of+brown+cloud&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&resnum=1&ct=title




And an article outlining the causes and problems associated with brown clouds:

www.unep.org


Mine are GE too Americanuity. Go figure.

Lonnie

The massive 'brown clouds' over parts of India, China, the Pacific, and other places are definitely one example of man's actions directly affecting climate.

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

And this concerns US citizens how? I mean they should clean it up so what you are advocating is being the world's janitor and wanting tax payers to foot the bill.

Lonnie

Mine are GE too Americanuity. Go figure.

Lonnie

That's weird. Must have come from a faulty lot or something.

I buy tons of bulk blank CD's. Sometimes they all work without a hitch, but once in awhile I'll buy 100 where half are messed up.

And this concerns US citizens how? I mean they should clean it up so what you are advocating is being the world's janitor and wanting tax payers to foot the bill.

Lonnie

If you got that from what I said about mankind affecting the Earth's climate my posts must be going to Google Translator, turned into Chinese, then Greek, then Russian, then Spanish, then Italian before making it into English LOL

BOAZ proposed man doesn't affect the Earth's climate. I showed it can.

LWALK

Also, the NASA animation I linked of where the brown clouds are include the U.S., not limited to Asia. "Dimming" caused by these brown clouds affects rainfall and crop growth as well.

No wait let's bankrupt ALL US coal companies, and coal burning utilities...ANYTHING that gives of CO2 must be bad, according to Obama.

get ready for the most anti business, anti American bill ever, Cap and Trade Tax.......stealing from the American public!

Why????? Because Obama and Pelosi want the tax money, and will do so under the guise of "saving" us from global warming. If it's not warming, then just because they say so....

That's what they said the internet would do to phone companies. Hasn't happened yet.

BOAZ proposed man doesn't affect the Earth's climate. I showed it can.

#86 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY
-------------

No you didn't. You showed that mans actions can affect LOCAL environment. A brown cloud over L.A. is a far cry from Global climate change.

So say you. Scientists say the brown clouds (several around the world) are keeping the Earth's temperature down by 1-2 degrees - preventing the full effects of global warming from being felt.

Click the link of the "brown clouds" around the world. Hardly limited to Asia.

www.nasa.gov

keeping the Earth's temperature down by 1-2 degrees - preventing the full effects of global warming from being felt.
-------

Interesting. So I guess the planet found a way to reach equilibrium. Kind of like it always does.

Also, there are other scientists that say AGW is boohawkey. The debate is far from over, and since it's not, lets refrain from making sweeping government mandates that will stifle business and spend more taxpayer money and get nothing in return. We're already doing plenty of that with bailouts. We don't need any more waste than we're already putting up with.

The massive 'brown clouds' over parts of India, China, the Pacific, and other places are definitely one example of man's actions directly affecting climate.

Frank Zappa was a genius.

WHO IS MAKING THOSE NEW BROWN CLOUDS?
WHO IS MAKING THOSE CLOUDS THESE DAYS?
WHO IS MAKING THOSE NEW BROWN CLOUDS?
BETTER ASK A PHILOSTOPHER 'N SEE WHAT HE SAYS!

~Zappa "Greggory Peccary"

The earth only has a limited ability to renew itself. Scientists have done experiments where they released trackable pollution into the atmosphere in order to see how long it would take the earth's natural cleansing ability to get rid of it. At one point it made it less than halfway across the globe, then later on more than halfways.

Last time this was done it made it all the way around and kept going.

The dragon chases it's own tail and it appears that it has finally caught it.

Earth's only real hope for a relatively undiminished future that isn't a complete ecological dystopia is for the worlds reat powers to work together for our common survival.

This includes addressing issues like over-population, going green, increasing anti-pollution standards.

Zat us prolly right that we as a species are not bright enuff to do so before great harm befalls us.

Spud big problem with that sad fact is that so much of the dumbing down on this planet is deliberate.

Be Well.

Also, there are other scientists that say AGW is boohawkey. The debate is far from over, and since it's not, lets refrain from making sweeping government mandates that will stifle business and spend more taxpayer money and get nothing in return.

Clean air and water and soil and safe unpoisoned food is hardly "nothing".

The gist of the entire GW/CC debate is that mankind's industries must evolve to be more eco-friendly or sustainability itself is imperilled.

Even if, as some suggest, GW/CC is some kind of massive hoax it still wouldn't change those very basic, undeniable, underlying truths.

Be Well.

The massive 'brown clouds' over parts of India, China, the Pacific, and other places are definitely one example of man's actions directly affecting climate.

This an example of someone who "wants" to believe in man made GW. I certainly don't deny that our climate might be changing but brown clouds over India doesn't mean man is causing this.

If is funny that the left (almost exclusively who is buying into mmgw) can be so anti faith but put all their faith into this.

The gist of the entire GW/CC debate is that mankind's industries must evolve to be more eco-friendly or sustainability itself is imperilled.

Many will and I'm all for it. We should be good stewards of our planet.

But our resident expert on GW says it has been too late for decades.

If mankind is causing GW then I would agree with him. Simple math tells me that.

Where in any of my posts have I mentioned Global Warming but to say that the brown clouds are keeping the Earth's temperature down 1-2 degrees?

PS The "Brown Clouds" are hardly limited to India.

One of them stretches from India, across China, and almost to Hawaii across the Pacific. They span the Northern Hemisphere.

"Contempt prior to investigation" isn't healthy to good debate.

Where in any of my posts have I mentioned Global Warming but to say that the brown clouds are keeping the Earth's temperature down 1-2 degrees?

What do you mean when you say that man is altering the climate?

You are not asserting global warming? or is it global cooling?

Global Warming is a farce--dreamed up by people who want to grab money and power.


Can we do better by being good stewarts of the planet? Yes.

But let's get the science right and keep the politics out of it.

AU,

Those brown clouds looks suspiciously like large dust clouds that have LONG been known to come out of both the Sahara and Gobi (you know the big desert next to China) deserts.

It is a pretty video, with absolutely NO context with which to support your claim of AGW. There is NO proof offered with your video that the clouds are man made, and no proof what-so-ever on the effects of the cloud in question.

In addition the text you supplied with your link purports to be dust CLOUDS from around the world, when in fact it looks more like a time-lapse of a single source cloud as it moves across the earth and dissipates.

*************************

Spud,

"Part of the computer modelled predictions include wild fluctuations."

So what you are saying is that you have an unfalsifiable theory. No matter what evidence is put forth in contradiction, the AGW believers will just say "the models predict wild fluctuations".

Sorry, but an unfalsifiable theory is inherently UNSCIENTIFIC and is therefore rightfully dismissed by anyone with a brain and without an agenda. If you want the world in general get back to me with a theory that can be tested and disproven without claims that any and every result are "covered by the models".

BTW... I am all for being eco-friendly, but there hasn't been enough evidence of AGW (and quite a bit of demonstrable fraud and hysterical hype) to warrant breaking the bank or the tax-payers to achieve it in such a rush.

If you want the world in general get back to me with a theory that can be tested and disproven without claims that any and every result are "covered by the models".

Sentence Correction:

If you want the world in general to take AGW more seriously, get back to me with a theory that can be tested and disproven without claims that any and every result are "covered by the models".

If computer models were worth much, Long-Term Capital Management, Bear Stearns, and Lehman Brothers would still be around. Their models postulated wide-scale bankruptcy of their mortgage and low-grade commercial tranches to be near zero. Yet, here we are.

I get real nervous whenever somebody writes a computer algorithm, shoves a graph in my face, and asks for money. Especially lately.

So what you are saying is that you have an unfalsifiable theory. No matter what evidence is put forth in contradiction, the AGW believers will just say "the models predict wild fluctuations

~Eberly

The future will always be, to a degree, unknowable. That sed, predictability increases as data comes in.

There is more than enough data to date to suggest the reality of MMCC, the only real questions now are wot's the best response to it and on how do we best ensure a global response to a global problem?

Spud sees it as a Catch 22 situation at present. Because there are so many pollutants in the atmosphere the worst of the GW/CC has yet to occur. Continuing to pollute is not a solution and cleaning up will cause a further acceleration of an already vicious cycle.

We are already passing on a planet much diminished from the one we were born on and the trending is not positive.

BTW... I am all for being eco-friendly, but there hasn't been enough evidence of AGW (and quite a bit of demonstrable fraud and hysterical hype) to warrant breaking the bank or the tax-payers to achieve it in such a rush.

Like any crisis there are many unethical people out there trying to make a quick buck off of it and they are adding fear mongering and alarmism and little else to the debate beyond scare tactics and hyperbole.

Zat aint one of them people in Spud rarely humble opinion.

He's bombastic but he's sincere.

Al Gore, otoh, recently told Obama he wasn't interested in taking on the challenge of being Enviromental Czar for his admin which took him down a few notches in Spud's estimation.

Willing to stand on the sidelines and boo but not get in the game for real?

WTF?

The whole Carbon Credit thing stinks to high heaven too by Spud's lights.

The existence of a global warming denial industry funded by BigOil and other sorporate polluters in order to keep this debate raging is undeniable.

But there is hope yet, replacing the lobbyist for some of the worst polluters of the planet with people who are passionate about doing their job over at the EPA will be a good start at least.

The meme that going green is "too expensive" is the corporate polluter's latest level of cognitive dissonance fer the unwashed masses. Actually that's their most sophisticated propaganda to date that has supplanted the "GW aint real" and the "GW aint MM" canards. Glad to see you've graduated to their highest level of BS.

That's progress right there. ;)

We are gonna hafta walk a fine line now, a balance point between doing wot's right and doing wot's affordable.

Either we walk that line carefully or we fall off the rope.

Life is choice.

Really gotta go now.

Be Well.

"covered by the models".

Yes, please.

Start with THESE FOUR...

Throw on a whack of vegetable oil and just keep 'em coming.

Be Well.

/Linked it like it's hawt.

~Eberly

The future will always be, to a degree, unknowable. That sed, predictability increases as data comes in.

There is more than enough data to date to suggest the reality of MMCC, the only real questions now are wot's the best response to it and on how do we best ensure a global response to a global problem?

Spud,

First of all, a minor point: It is me (MoomanFL) you were responding to, not Eberly... or at least it is my quote you were using.

Now to the meat (and potatoes?):

There is data, true, what is arguable is the reliability of that data, and of those supplying it. Mr. Hansen from NASA who supplies a large part of the data used by the IPCC, and is the most quoted AGW proponent has been caught more than once with bad data which was then used for some of the more famous claims of the AGW crowd. He has also been caught making unsupported, or in some cases wildly exaggerated, claims on AGW. For some good examples see the article I listed above in response to Zat's listing October 2008 as the 6th hottest October in the last 100 years, when in actuality is was about the 70th hottest in the last 114 years.

All of which plays into my second quote that you used:

"BTW... I am all for being eco-friendly, but there hasn't been enough evidence of AGW (and quite a bit of demonstrable fraud and hysterical hype) to warrant breaking the bank or the tax-payers to achieve it in such a rush."

Like any crisis there are many unethical people out there trying to make a quick buck off of it and they are adding fear mongering and alarmism and little else to the debate beyond scare tactics and hyperbole.

The problem is, when one of those "unethical people" that are "adding fear mongering and alarmism" by using "scare tactics and hyperbole" and on top of that pushing obviously unreliable data is one of the top voices of the movement that everyone else quotes and relies on.... well that kind of puts a crimp in the whole works as far as I am concerned. The whole thing is tainted.

When one person pisses in the rain barrel you don't just continue to drink because it was only a "little bit". You dump the barrel and start collecting again... and take precautions this time.

Instead the AGW crowd just glosses over each incident saying it is isolated, but then doesn't try to backtrack and cut out every conclusion that relied on the tainted data. Instead, they hardly even admit there WAS a taint and keep on with business as usual.

In just about any other scientific endeavor this type of practice would make a laughingstock of whoever tried to do this... but evidently not in the AGW crowd. That is why more and more, people are starting to view AGW as faith more than science.

That doesn't help the argument for AGW at all.

RightIsRight

On the topic of predictions, this guy's record is stellar. Watch the others snicker as Peter Shiff correctly predicts one financial event after another he saw coming - as far back ago as early 2006. It's eerie.

www.youtube.com

"70th hottest in the last 114 years."

Far out!
Moonpie's lying again.
Why don't you post another forged "petition" signed by dead people? That was fun.

Temperature record:data.giss.nasa.gov

Ten coldest Octobers on record:

Year Oct avg F
1886 56.03
1891 56.05
1903 56.30
1912 56.34
1917 56.39
1898 56.43
1904 56.43
1884 56.44
1897 56.46
1880 56.48

Ten warmest Octobers on record:
Year Oct avg F
1998 58.24
1995 58.28
2008 58.35
2004 58.48
2006 58.53
2007 58.53
2003 58.57
2005 58.75

70th warmest October on record:

Year Oct avg F
1962 57.29


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

AU

Thanks for that link.

Impressive.

"70th hottest in the last 114 years."

Far out!
Moonpie's lying again.

Except that the conclusion about October 2008 was based on faulty data showing a hotspot in Russia that didn't exist. Turns out the data was cloned from the previous year resulting in a much higher average for this October than actually occurred.

GISS Releases (Suspect) October 2008 Data
wattsupwiththat.com

Zat, quite frankly... you are a religious nut. Maybe you don't follow a "god" per se.... but you certainly have a religion.

Here Zat, this is a little more on the particulars of the anomaly that caused the most recent GISS fuckup:

www.climateaudit.org

Whatever is causing global warming we should ameliorate man's contributions if we can.

AU,

Agreed.... to a point.

That is to say, I agree we should be eco-friendly. However, if we aren't killing the planet, and with all the fraud and hype rampant in the AGW movement combined with the fact that past warming periods have been beneficial instead of harmful to the planet.... then there is no need to impoverish the world in an "at all costs" effort to get it all done immediately.

On the topic of predictions, this guy's record is stellar. Watch the others snicker as Peter Shiff correctly predicts one financial event after another he saw coming - as far back ago as early 2006. It's eerie.
* * * *

I became a Schiff disciple in November of last year. I got a referral from a client to see his mother, who had invested $160,000 in mortgage bonds that were worth $45,000. I told her she must be reading her statement improperly, because that kind of move on insured bonds was impossible. Come the appointment, and she was right--she had lost 75% of her investment. I saw the writing on the wall then, but honestly didn't start to make the moves that matter until summer 2008, when we were already down 15% on the year, and 18% from the high set October 2007, when the Dow was at over 14k. Which is a level we won't see again for years.

This is an election the Republicans will be glad to have lost. The economy is being simply annihilated; every single metric of economic health is something right out of a Steinbeck novel. Raise cash now. Sell everything you can. And if I'm wrong, then you've got a nice pile of cash to buy back in with.

RiR

If you didn't get a chance to watch that 9 minute video of clips from one financial show after another where Schiff was spot on and the others snickered ... it's priceless.

I wonder how many besides the uber wrong Ben Stein are still getting paid to go on TV and be wrong.

"70th warmest October on record:

Year Oct avg F
1962 57.29"

I lied, and I bet not a single one of you imbeciles noticed.

The 70th warmest October on record was 1933, world wide average temp 57.2 F.

The coldest October on record is 1886: 56.0 F.
The warmest October on record is 2005: 58.7 F.

2008? 58.4 F. Number six from the top.

Temperature record: data.giss.nasa.gov

Average October temps plotted by year: http://i179.photobucket.com/ albums/w288/leicalover/ OctavgFbyYear.jpg?t=1226921752

Least squares fit to all the data: + 0.0095 deg F per year increase since 1880.

Least squares fit to the data data since 1970: + 0.0403 deg F per year.

Try that link again: i179.photobucket.com

The world has never seen such freezing heat
By Christopher Booker
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 16/11/2008

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

www.telegraph.co.uk


lol

From NZ...


Sunspots spell end of climate myth
The Dominion Post | Tuesday, 11 November 2008


It is disturbing that many recent statements on climate change by influential people are not supported by hard evidence.


For instance, Professor Ralph Chapman's statement that the globe risks a tipping point if emissions are not reduced by 2015 is unsupported by hard evidence, as is David Parker's claim that if we do nothing to reduce emissions, New Zealand could be up to $500 million worse off by 2012.

This is not true because, if we adopt the Emissions Trading Scheme, electricity bills alone will increase by more than $500 million each year.

www.stuff.co.nz

It snowed here in the mountains of WV before the election....so I burnt a pile of tires to stay warm.

*..doin' my part..*

"The total amount of ice, which set a record low value last year, grew in October at the fastest pace since record-keeping began in 1979."

WOW, since 1979, Now that is some data we can hold onto.

I was reading a reptile book to my son and it stated that crocodiles have been around for 200 million years.

1979....solid, solid data

so is 200 million dino years since the Flintstones

Even IF global warming were occurring, no one can say that such a phenomena is worse for life and the planet than global cooling. In fact, life in the past has had a much harder time in cold temperatures than warm ones.

So polar ice caps melt. Whoopy fucking-do! I'd bet that if we went the other direction...into another ice age where polar caps grow and glaciers extend, life on earth would be a hell of a lot more difficult than if ocean levels rose from warming. I'd bet there would be many more extinctions in a global freeze than a global warming. Yet, the global warming fear mongers would have us believe we're on the verge of mass extinction. BULL SHIT!

Scientists said the same a generation ago when preaching to the masses of a new ice-age coming. They said the same when warning the world of Acid Rain and how it was going to destroy the food chain. Now the ZATBIRDS et. al, are saying it's "warming" that will do us in! HORSE SHIT!

Global Warming is a religion, and the ZATFUNDAMENTALISTS are no different than any other fundie out there, warning of death and destruction unless you repent and see things their way.

Apparently the debate over global warming is far from over

It HAS been kinda boring since the election so let's see if we can all get ol' Zat's and DeadPud's shorts all up in a knot. A great way to spend a cold morning. God! I love this site! What a bunch of great entertainers.

Sorcerer's Apprentice Caught With Pants Down
Clarice Feldman
A particularly egregious and obvious error seems to have finally outed Al Gore's Merlin, NASA's Dr. James Hansen:


... [a] surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.


This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.


So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.


The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.
It's not the first time, either that his "records" fail any test of accuracy and that he's tap danced away from any notion of being accountable for his errors.

Update -- Bruce Thompson writes:

Now is the time for President Bush to bring the debate on global warming out into the open by firing James Hansen of GISS. There certainly is cause for firing him. And since the GISS data has been the primary data source for the global warming alarmists, publicizing the unreliability of their data is crucial to defeating carbon taxes.

If you didn't get a chance to watch that 9 minute video of clips from one financial show after another where Schiff was spot on and the others snickered ... it's priceless.
* * * *

I saw some of the original shows, and was one of the ones snickering. I was mistaken, obviously--kudos for him for being the lonely voice in the wilderness--now when he's on, I have my notepad out.

I'm of the opinion its better to act and have it be a false alarm than not act and have it be real. Sort of like cleaning your house from top to bottom because you think family is coming to stay for a while, but then they decide not to. In the end you're just left with a nice looking place.

So let's prep for some type of global climate change by developing alternative and efficiant sources of energy, let's clean up a bit. If it doesn't come and isn't real, well at least we're not dependent on foreign oil, right?

BUT BUT BUT Zatoichi says the Ice is melting.

Zat believes algore's buddy Dr James Hansen, who has been cooking the books on world temps.

"Zat believes algore's buddy Dr James Hansen, who has been cooking the books on world temps."

Well, Zat has to believe him. I think Zat's scientific, peer-reviewed swimming pool is letting him down and is registering colder temps causing Zat's scrotum to shrink up.

"cooking the books"

Not too bright, are you Snappy?

That would be Moonpie and his forged "petition" signed by dead or nonexistent folks.


"Under-ice flood speeds up glacier
Great floods beneath the Antarctic ice sheet can now be linked directly to the speed at which that ice moves towards the ocean."

news.bbc.co.uk

Hansen has zero to do with the world wide temperature record.

GLOBAL Temperature Anomalies in .01 C base period: 1951-1980

sources: GHCN 1880-10/2008 (meteorological stations only)
using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment

data.giss.nasa.gov

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

"In the US ... only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years."

I hate to break this to you, mr soon-to-be-extinct, but the US isn't the planet Earth.

PLANETARY temp record: data.giss.nasa.gov

Sixth warmest October in 128 years.

"mr soon-to-be-extinct"

A little dramatic don't you think?

Nature and mankind included will adapt to whatever happens.

BUT BUT BUT Zatoichi says the Ice is melting.
Zat believes algore's buddy Dr James Hansen, who has been cooking the books on world temps.
#129 | Posted by Sniper at 2008-11-17 11:22 AM

Fresh water lakes at many altitudes are mysteriously evaporating.

Gravity has never been "proven." It is still a theory.


Still, I'm not planning on testing it anytime soon.


Hans

#55 | Posted by Hans

Try using that logic to say that evolution is just a theory and watch how many rabid lib repsonses you get.

This is unprecedented.


Deny it all you like, MMGW/MMCC is very real.


Be Well.

#74 | Posted by dethspud


It is not unprecedented. We have had massive ice melts and animal's have been forced to relocate since the beginning of time on Earth. Global warming alarmists want us to believe that none of this has ever happened and that is the biggest lie of them all. Climate change is as natural a part of our planet as the inhabitants which populate it.

Thirty of forty years from now I hope you alarmists/libs are capable of some intellectual honesty when it turns out this was all bullshit.

Thirty of forty years from now I hope you alarmists/libs are capable of some intellectual honesty when it turns out this was all bullshit.

Posted by everlong

Hell. Spud is totally believing this stuff as he uses a big can of hairspray to touch up his hair.

He probably believed that can of hairspray caused a hole in the ozone. Which it didn't.

"If computer models were worth much," - RiR, et al

Yet they are used, and heavily relied upon, by engineers, astronomers, physicists, etc. Much of the nuclear weapon testing done in this country is now done via computer models and simulations. Wow those people must be stupid for believing in them.

I know from what I've seen, read and heard that the climate is changing. I also have seen, read and heard enough to know humans can, and do, impact climate, e.g., burning down great stretches of the Amazon jungle. What I don't know is how much humans are affecting the climate. What I like, and what I want, is when someone presents a real scientific case for their views.

What I keep seeing is one side presenting computer models and various measurements and data. Flawed, incomplete, but presented. The other side seems to stick to demanding more and more proof without presenting counter scenarios. It presents arguments like "it's happened before" (so have wars - does that explain Iraq?), computer models are worthless (yet science relies on them pretty heavily), various one shot explanations which last until disproved, then the next one is trotted out, like "sun-spots are affecting the climate" (but none this year), or "I don't believe it", or "nothing is happening".

I guess it's pretty obvious which side I'm inclined to take more seriously.

"Global warming alarmists want us to believe that none of this has ever happened" - Everlong

Alarmists do, yes. The scientific community which studies global warming does not. To say otherwise exhibits only a complete lack of understanding of the investigation process.

"The debate is over"

The debate on whether or not the world's climate is changing is pretty close to being over. The debate on what role human activity plays in this warming is nowhere near over. The debate whether humans can impact global climate was over a long time ago.

The other side seems to stick to demanding more and more proof without presenting counter scenarios.

I have seen both sides present data to substantiate their position. Not just one. I never challenge global warming data with countering data. There are others here who do. constantly.

Kerrin, for example, has posted a ton of scientific findings that shows the other side of the argument.

Dino the Dinosaur has a bigger impact on the Earth's climate that China does.FACT

Zat's data and conclusions may be correct. The problem is he is such a condescending prick and delights in pointing out how smart he thinks he is compared to everyone else. Maybe if he dropped the douche bag attitude people would be more inclined to listen to him.

Unfortunately, NP, I think you are wrong. People who for partisan or ideological reasons choose to close their eyes to the mountain evidence supporting the reality of GW are not gonna change their minds no matter how "nice" or "sensitive" Zat or anyone else is in presenting the facts.

Zat's data and conclusions may be correct.

I agree. I also agree that if humans are causing this then it is way too late.

If after billions of years, we managed to create such a significant impact in the last 100, then no matter what we do, we can't reverse it.

Our climate is simply too sensitive to accept anything but a complete shutdown of anything that releases the burning of fossil fuels.

Think about it....only 100 years after billions before and we are already fucking it up huge.

"There are others here who do. constantly." - Eberly

Yep. And when I check out the literature on thosearguments, turns out they are one-shot deals. None are part of an encompasing counter-scenario. Most disappear from serious debate pretty quickly.

"Dino the Dinosaur has a bigger impact on the Earth's climate that China does.FACT"

Eberly, see, this is the kind of GC-skeptic argument I hear most.

"If after billions of years, we managed to create such a significant impact in the last 100, then no matter what we do, we can't reverse it." - Eberly

Some issues with that statement. Climate change has happened many times before. Didn't happen just now for the first time, after billions of years. And had been on the brink of happening in the past, but didn't happen. Per various climate-related studies I have read. All we [may] have done is condense what normally takes centuries or millenium into decades or a century. Seems logical that we can do the reverse.

Seems logical that we can do the reverse.

Fine. You go ahead and get this plant to reduce fossil fuel emissions down 80% and maybe it will reverse. Make sure you get China to agree too.

Good luck.

gotta go.

"Fine. You go ahead and get this plant to reduce fossil fuel emissions down 80% and maybe it will reverse. Make sure you get China to agree too."

Yeah, or I could just off myself and not have to worry, eh Ebs? Or maybe there is more to the issue than some either/or scenario?

Just goes to show that this global warming crap is a giant pile of sh#t and so are the brains of the people of belive in global warming.

Of course, the in-the-tank for the left media won't report this.

Of course, the in-the-tank for the left media won't report this.

#152 | Posted by utastaff


Quick, call the Shorthorn and have them get right on it!

www.theshorthorn.com

We should be building a greener infrastructure regardless of whether or not the pants pissing chicken littles (Zat, Moder8, etc...) are leading the charge.

It's important for many other reasons than the pseudo-religious fear and trembling coming from the global warming crowd.

"we can't reverse it"

Yup. It's been too late for decades.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L09501, doi:10.1029/2007GL029703, 2007

Arctic sea ice decline: Faster than forecast

www.agu.org


It's not like you fools weren't warned.

On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground
Arrhenius, Svante, 1896
wiki.nsdl.org

The Artificial Production of Carbon Dioxide and Its Influence on Temperature
Callendar, G.S., 1938
wiki.nsdl.org

Time: Warmer World
Monday, Jan. 02, 1939
www.time.com


That's right, 1896, 1938 and 1939.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Party on!

I think 6 day Creationists come up with some pretty crazy theories too. Their science is considered hair-brain, but "Influence of Carbonic Acid" science is to be believed!

Yeah...ok!

Zat's data and conclusions may be correct. The problem is he is such a condescending prick

#144 | Posted by NuclearPenguin

His conclusions are correct for the data he is looking at. Too bad the data is corrupt.

Spud: This is unprecedented.

Deny it all you like, MMGW/MMCC is very real.

Everlong: It is not unprecedented. We have had massive ice melts and animal's have been forced to relocate since the beginning of time on Earth. Global warming alarmists want us to believe that none of this has ever happened and that is the biggest lie of them all. Climate change is as natural a part of our planet as the inhabitants which populate it.

Have we had non man made Climate change and ice ages in the past? Of course, we have.

Has this affected animal migrations? Yes, indeed.

Hell, some species like the dinosaur were wiped out entirely due to their inability to adapt to the changes and new ones evolved but here's the thing. Those changes occurred gradually. The changes we are seeing now aren't. Also those changes occured at a time when mankind didn't number in the Billions and when mankind's industrial footprint largely didn't exist. To try and argue that man's massive global footprint, especially in the last hundred years, isn't a part of Climate Change is willfull ignorance.

There is natural climate change and natural global warming and cooling.

There is also man made climate change and man made global warming.

/Hence "MMCC/MMGW"

Trying to argue the nonexistence of the latter due to the existence of the former is intellecual dishonesty.

Someone's playing silly buggers with the Data suggests Moo?

Maybe some data is faulty but the vast majority of it is sound.

The evidence is overwhelming. It can be seen from space with the naked eye.

The evidence of the GW denial industry playing silly bugggers with the data is also overwhelming.

Unless mankind curbs it's consumption of resources on an unprecedented scale or achieves global ZPG the end results are, unfortunately, all too predictable.

/"It won't blow up or disappear
It'll just look ugly for a million years"

Be Well.

That's right, 1896, 1938 and 1939.


Couldn't sell that then. People didn't have 2 cars if they even had one. Depression going on etc...

LOL

AU,

Those brown clouds looks suspiciously like large dust clouds that have LONG been known to come out of both the Sahara and Gobi (you know the big desert next to China) deserts.

They're pollution, not dust. I should have linked an article too.

Brown clouds dim Asia, threaten world's food

U.N.: Pollution haze could lead to extreme weather, harm farming

BEIJING - Thick brown clouds of soot, particles and chemicals stretching from the Persian Gulf to Asia threaten health and food supplies in the world, the U.N. reported Thursday, citing what it called the newest threat to the global environment.

and

At the same time, the brown clouds have also masked the full impact of global warming by helping to cool the earth's surface and tamp down rising temperatures by between 20 to 80 percent, the study said. That's because some of the particles that make up the clouds reflect sunlight and cool down the air.

The latest findings, conducted by an international collaboration of scientists over seven-plus years, are the most detailed to date on the brown cloud phenomenon, which is not unique to Asia. Other hotspots are seen in North America, Europe, South Africa and South America.

"Sea ice is floating and therefore doesn't affect sea level like the ice anchored on bedrock in Antarctica or Greenland. However, research has indicated that the Antarctic continent -- which is on a long-term cooling trend -- has also been gaining ice in recent years."

Exactly like I posted here in the past.

Global Warming is hokem; but let us sign the Kyoto accords that do nothing but move money from us and redistribute it to other countries.

Liberals, Wrong on the environment, taxes, Social issues. But we will see what happens these next 4.

The warmest decade on record was in the 1930s.

Gore made a killing off liberals.

I'm going to put it simply so that the really slow here can understand it. I'm even going to use a simple and idiot-proof analogy. Ready? Here we go.

Have you looked at the stock market in the past couple of months and seen a little green in all that red? You probably have once or twice. Does this bit of green mean that there is no recession? No. That would be foolish. We all know that stock prices rise and fall, but the overall net change is a loss.

This is like global warming, except flipped around. We may see a drop in temperature every few years, but it's the net that's important, and unfortunately for us the net temperature over the years shows a gain. Maybe if we could find some way to switch the numbers on the DOW and the Earth?

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2010 World Readable