Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[boutons_deux]

Manny trashing talking a pin which does nothing but mark the crossover date?

[MannyIsGod]

WTF is the crossover date and why is it relevant? The importance in that chart is with the time series of the 3 factors and how they relate to one another, not that point. The chart in the paper is good. That graphic is terrible. They should have just used the initial chart.

Its figure 4.

http://cliserv.jql.usu.edu/paper/CA_drought_final.pdf

To be fair, thinkprogress didn't fuck it up though. The University press release did. Its their graphic.

Relevant:
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174

[Big Empty]

i kinda wish Gore never made that documentary. Now global warming is just political football instead of acknowledging there appears to be problem that points to humans causing it.

[boutons_deux]

i kinda wish Gore never made that documentary. Now global warming is just political football instead of acknowledging there appears to be problem that points to humans causing it.

Gore's film did not cause Repugs to politicize/deny AWG and shill for their paymasters BigCarbon against AGW.

[boutons_deux]

G.O.P. RIVALS QUESTION RUBIO’S IGNORANCE CREDENTIALS

WASHINGTON — After claiming on Sunday that human activity does not cause climate change, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) suddenly found his ignorance credentials under attack by potential rivals for the 2016 Republican Presidential nomination.

“Now that Marco’s thinking of running for President, he doesn’t believe in climate change,” said Texas Governor Rick Perry. “To those of us with long track records of ignorance on this issue, he seems a little late to the rodeo.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) echoed Gov. Perry’s criticism, calling Rubio a “dummy-come-lately” on climate change.

“At the end of the day, I have faith that Republican voters can tell the difference between someone who’s truly uninformed and someone who’s just faking it,” he said. “These comments by Marco don’t pass the smell test.”

By Sunday evening, a defensive Sen. Rubio was pushing back against the attacks, telling reporters, “Any questions about the authenticity of my ignorance are deeply offensive to me.”

“My refusal to accept the scientific research on climate change is a matter of public record,” he said. “On this issue and many others my ignorance should take a back seat to no one’s.”

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2014/05/gop-rivals-question-rubios-ignorance-credentials.html

[xrayzebra]

Someone let Al Gore know the South Pole isn’t melting. Antarctic sea ice coverage reached record levels for April, hitting 3.5 million square miles — the largest on record.

It was a cold summer down in Antarctica, with sea ice coverage growing about 43,500 square miles a day, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSDC). April 2014 beats the previous sea-ice coverage record from April 2008 by a whopping 124,000 square miles.

But even with autumn in full swing in the South Pole, “record levels continue to be set in early May,” reports the NSDC. Sea ice levels have been “significantly above” satellite data averages for 16 consecutive months.

The most pronounced growth in sea-ice coverage is in the eastern Weddell Sea and areas south of Australia and along the southeastern Indian Ocean, according to NSDC. And temperatures in the Weddell Sea region have been 1 to 2 degrees Celsius below the 1981 to 2010 average during March and April. Similar cooling trends have lowered average temperatures along the southern Indian Ocean by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius.

“However, across much of the far Southern Hemisphere, temperatures have been above average: For example, in the southern Antarctic Peninsula, temperatures have been 1 to 2 degrees Celsius (2 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit) above average; in the southern South Pacific, temperatures have been 1.5 to 2.5 degrees Celsius (3 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit) above average, and up to 4 degrees Celsius (7 degrees Fahrenheit) above average in the area near the South Pole,” NSDC notes.

Antarctica has seen huge sea-ice growth throughout this year and last, which caught many climate scientists by surprise — some more literally than others.

In late December, a group of tourists and climate scientists got caught in Antarctic ice pack about 1,500 miles south of Tasmania. The expedition sought to document how global warming has changed the region in the last century, but instead made world headlines for getting stuck in record levels of ice.

“We’re stuck in our own experiment,” the Australasian Antarctic Expedition said in a statement. “We came to Antarctica to study how one of the biggest icebergs in the world has altered the system by trapping ice.”

The expedition was eventually rescued by helicopter and brought back to Australia. To make a bad trip worse, the ice breaker that rescued the expeditionaries also got stuck in some ice on its way back.

But while eastern areas of Antarctica are growing rapidly, scientists are warning that the continent’s western ice sheet has begun to collapse.

“Today we present observational evidence that the [ice sheet] has gone into irreversible retreat,” said Eric Rignot, the lead author of a study claiming the ice sheet was collapsing. “It has reached the point of no return.”

Rignot told reporters at a press conference hosted by NASA that the slow collapse of the glacier could raise sea levels between 10 and 13 feet.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/12/global-cooling-antarctic-sea-ice-coverage-continues-to-break-records/#ixzz31cImNlzJ

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You did okay with the source but do you really need you to bold shit for us? Thanks for the link cause I am not reading your edit.

[Wild Cobra]

The study referenced in the boutons post above is one of the best examples of showing the anthropogenic effect on atmospheric patterns and how it exacerbates certain aspects of them. They showed the effect AGW has had and how it contributed to the severity of the drought extremely well, IMO. Too bad the article felt the need to butcher the graph and put a pin where it makes no sense.
I disagree. I'm old enough to remember talk about natural cycles of the winds, of more than 30 years, and see them as well.

[boutons_deux]

Crazy Climate Economics

Everywhere you look these days, you see Marxism on the rise. Well, O.K., maybe you don’t — but conservatives do. If you so much as mention income inequality, you’ll be denounced as the second coming of Joseph Stalin; Rick Santorum has declared that any use of the word “class” is “Marxism talk (http://www.msnbc.com/politicsnation/santorum-middle-class-leftist-talk).” In the right’s eyes, sinister motives lurk everywhere — for example, George Will says (http://www.newsweek.com/will-why-liberals-love-trains-68597) the only reason progressives favor trains is their goal of “diminishing Americans’ individualism in order to make them more amenable to collectivism.”

So it goes without saying that Obamacare, based on ideas originally developed at the Heritage Foundation (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/10/20/how-a-conservative-think-tank-invented-the-individual-mandate/), is a Marxist scheme — why, requiring that people purchase insurance is practically the same as sending them to gulags.

And just wait until the Environmental Protection Agency announces rules intended to slow the pace of climate change.

Until now, the right’s climate craziness has mainly been focused on attacking the science. And it has been quite a spectacle:

At this point almost all card-carrying conservatives endorse the view that climate change is a gigantic hoax, that thousands of research papers showing a warming planet — 97 percent (http://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/climate-change/97-percent-three-key-papers-quantifying-scientific-concensus-global-warming-climate-change) of the literature — are the product of a vast international conspiracy. But as the Obama administration moves toward actually doing something based on that science, crazy climate economics will come into its own.

You can already get a taste of what’s coming in the dissenting opinions from a recent Supreme Court ruling on power-plant pollution. A majority of the justices agreed that the E.P.A. has the right to regulate smog from coal-fired power plants, which drifts across state lines.

But Justice Scalia didn’t just dissent; he suggested (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/30/us/politics/supreme-court-backs-epa-coal-pollution-rules.html?_r=0) that the E.P.A.’s proposed rule — which would tie the size of required smog reductions to cost — reflected the Marxist concept of “from each according to his ability.” Taking cost into consideration is Marxist? Who knew?

And you can just imagine what will happen when the E.P.A., buoyed by the smog ruling, moves on to regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.

What do I mean by crazy climate economics?

First, we’ll see any effort to limit pollution denounced as a tyrannical act. Pollution wasn’t always a deeply partisan issue: Economists in the George W. Bush administration wrote paeans (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/ceq/clean-air.html) to “market based” pollution controls, and in 2008 John McCain made proposals for cap-and-trade limits (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/us/politics/12cnd-mccain.html) on greenhouse gases part of his presidential campaign. But when House Democrats actually passed a cap-and-trade bill in 2009, it was attacked as, you guessed it, Marxist. And these days Republicans come out in force to oppose even the most obviously needed regulations, like the plan to reduce the pollution that’s killing Chesapeake Bay. (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/16/3363281/states-block-chesapeake-cleanup/)

Second, we’ll see claims that any effort to limit emissions will have what Senator Marco Rubio (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/08/3435779/rubio-obama-meteorologist/) is already calling “a devastating impact on our economy.”

Why is this crazy? Normally, conservatives extol the magic of markets and the adaptability of the private sector, which is supposedly able to transcend with ease any constraints posed by, say, limited supplies of natural resources. But as soon as anyone proposes adding a few limits to reflect environmental issues — such as a cap on carbon emissions — those all-capable corporations supposedly lose any ability to cope with change.

(http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/12/opinion/krugman-crazy-climate-economics.html?ref=opinion&_r=0#story-continues-2)Now, the rules the E.P.A. is likely to impose won’t give the private sector as much flexibility as it would have had in dealing with an economy-wide carbon cap or emissions tax. But Republicans have only themselves to blame: Their scorched-earth opposition to any kind of climate policy has left executive action by the White House as the only route forward.

Furthermore, it turns out that focusing climate policy on coal-fired power plants isn’t bad as a first step. Such plants aren’t the only source of greenhouse gas emissions, but they’re a large part of the problem — and the best estimates we have of the path forward suggest that reducing power-plant emissions (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/nov/07/climate-change-gambling-civilization/) will be a large part of any solution.

What about the argument that unilateral U.S. action won’t work, because China is the real problem? It’s true that we’re no longer No. 1 in greenhouse gases — but we’re still a strong No. 2 (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html).

Furthermore, U.S. action on climate is a necessary first step toward a broader international agreement, which will surely include sanctions on countries that don’t participate.

So the coming firestorm over new power-plant regulations won’t be a genuine debate — just as there isn’t a genuine debate about climate science.

Instead, the airwaves will be filled with conspiracy theories and wild claims about costs, all of which should be ignored. Climate policy may finally be getting somewhere; let’s not let crazy climate economics get in the way.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/12/opinion/krugman-crazy-climate-economics.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

yep, the Repug/Fox/VRWC/BigCargon anti-EPA game plan is very predictable.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Someone let Al Gore know the South Pole isn’t melting. Antarctic sea ice coverage reached record levels for April, hitting 3.5 million square miles — the largest on record.

It was a cold summer down in Antarctica, with sea ice coverage growing about 43,500 square miles a day, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSDC). April 2014 beats the previous sea-ice coverage record from April 2008 by a whopping 124,000 square miles.

But even with autumn in full swing in the South Pole, “record levels continue to be set in early May,” reports the NSDC. Sea ice levels have been “significantly above” satellite data averages for 16 consecutive months.

The most pronounced growth in sea-ice coverage is in the eastern Weddell Sea and areas south of Australia and along the southeastern Indian Ocean, according to NSDC. And temperatures in the Weddell Sea region have been 1 to 2 degrees Celsius below the 1981 to 2010 average during March and April. Similar cooling trends have lowered average temperatures along the southern Indian Ocean by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius.

“However, across much of the far Southern Hemisphere, temperatures have been above average: For example, in the southern Antarctic Peninsula, temperatures have been 1 to 2 degrees Celsius (2 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit) above average; in the southern South Pacific, temperatures have been 1.5 to 2.5 degrees Celsius (3 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit) above average, and up to 4 degrees Celsius (7 degrees Fahrenheit) above average in the area near the South Pole,” NSDC notes.

Antarctica has seen huge sea-ice growth throughout this year and last, which caught many climate scientists by surprise — some more literally than others.

In late December, a group of tourists and climate scientists got caught in Antarctic ice pack about 1,500 miles south of Tasmania. The expedition sought to document how global warming has changed the region in the last century, but instead made world headlines for getting stuck in record levels of ice.

“We’re stuck in our own experiment,” the Australasian Antarctic Expedition said in a statement. “We came to Antarctica to study how one of the biggest icebergs in the world has altered the system by trapping ice.”

The expedition was eventually rescued by helicopter and brought back to Australia. To make a bad trip worse, the ice breaker that rescued the expeditionaries also got stuck in some ice on its way back.

But while eastern areas of Antarctica are growing rapidly, scientists are warning that the continent’s western ice sheet has begun to collapse.

“Today we present observational evidence that the [ice sheet] has gone into irreversible retreat,” said Eric Rignot, the lead author of a study claiming the ice sheet was collapsing. “It has reached the point of no return.”

Rignot told reporters at a press conference hosted by NASA that the slow collapse of the glacier could raise sea levels between 10 and 13 feet.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/12/global-cooling-antarctic-sea-ice-coverage-continues-to-break-records/#ixzz31cImNlzJ

Too bad the study being referenced is talking about a glacier that is currently on land and is moving out to sea. I want you to think on how something like that happening would effect the amount of ice in the sea.

[Wild Cobra]

G.O.P. RIVALS QUESTION RUBIO’S IGNORANCE CREDENTIALS

WASHINGTON — After claiming on Sunday that human activity does not cause climate change, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) suddenly found his ignorance credentials under attack by potential rivals for the 2016 Republican Presidential nomination.

“Now that Marco’s thinking of running for President, he doesn’t believe in climate change,” said Texas Governor Rick Perry. “To those of us with long track records of ignorance on this issue, he seems a little late to the rodeo.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) echoed Gov. Perry’s criticism, calling Rubio a “dummy-come-lately” on climate change.

“At the end of the day, I have faith that Republican voters can tell the difference between someone who’s truly uninformed and someone who’s just faking it,” he said. “These comments by Marco don’t pass the smell test.”

By Sunday evening, a defensive Sen. Rubio was pushing back against the attacks, telling reporters, “Any questions about the authenticity of my ignorance are deeply offensive to me.”

“My refusal to accept the scientific research on climate change is a matter of public record,” he said. “On this issue and many others my ignorance should take a back seat to no one’s.”

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2014/05/gop-rivals-question-rubios-ignorance-credentials.html




Leave it to Larry Finkelstein to link an article that misquote a republican.


Our climate is always changing, I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it, and I do not believe that the laws that they propose we pass will do anything about it, except it will destroy our economy.

Seriously... The New Yorker...

What is wrong with his words? He didn't deny man made climate chane, he said he didn't believe man made climate changes were dramatic!

It doesn't take much to send libtards into a tizzy...

[boutons_deux]

the joke article was on the money: M.R.-for-Pres is denying AGW, dramatic or not, is not a problem, slavishly conforming to the BigCarbon dictates.

and EPA or other regs, ALL regs, will be economic disasters, USA-destroying TRAINWRECKS, exactly as marxist/socialist/takeover ACA is destroying USA.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Seriously... The New Yorker...


Seriously...it's the New Yorker

[SnakeBoy]

G.O.P. RIVALS QUESTION RUBIO’S IGNORANCE CREDENTIALS

WASHINGTON — After claiming on Sunday that human activity does not cause climate change, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) suddenly found his ignorance credentials under attack by potential rivals for the 2016 Republican Presidential nomination.

“Now that Marco’s thinking of running for President, he doesn’t believe in climate change,” said Texas Governor Rick Perry. “To those of us with long track records of ignorance on this issue, he seems a little late to the rodeo.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) echoed Gov. Perry’s criticism, calling Rubio a “dummy-come-lately” on climate change.

“At the end of the day, I have faith that Republican voters can tell the difference between someone who’s truly uninformed and someone who’s just faking it,” he said. “These comments by Marco don’t pass the smell test.”

By Sunday evening, a defensive Sen. Rubio was pushing back against the attacks, telling reporters, “Any questions about the authenticity of my ignorance are deeply offensive to me.”

“My refusal to accept the scientific research on climate change is a matter of public record,” he said. “On this issue and many others my ignorance should take a back seat to no one’s.”

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2014/05/gop-rivals-question-rubios-ignorance-credentials.html





The inability of some people on this forum to recognize weak satire never ceases to amaze me.

[MannyIsGod]

Gore's film did not cause Repugs to politicize/deny AWG and shill for their paymasters BigCarbon against AGW.

Reaction to a film by a very polarizing figure absolutely contributed to the level of GOP denial on global warming.

[MannyIsGod]

I disagree.

No one cares.

[Wild Cobra]

No one cares.
Yes, I know. The indoctrinated youth like you don't care about the facts.

[boutons_deux]

Reaction to a film by a very polarizing figure absolutely contributed to the level of GOP denial on global warming.

The reaction was orchestrated by BigCarbon as is all AGW denying. Anything, like a film, that comes along will be ridiculed and trashed by BigCarbon.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The inability of some people on this forum to recognize weak satire never ceases to amaze me.

Is that what you are calling your copouts when you feel like you are losing your arguments nowadays?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Leave it to Larry Finkelstein to link an article that misquote a republican.



Seriously... The New Yorker...

What is wrong with his words? He didn't deny man made climate chane, he said he didn't believe man made climate changes were dramatic!

It doesn't take much to send libtards into a tizzy...

The article is about Perry and Rand disputing it. Your dumbass recognizes that right?

[SnakeBoy]

Is that what you are calling your copouts when you feel like you are losing your arguments nowadays?

I don't do satire, never been good at it.


The article is about Perry and Rand disputing it. Your dumbass recognizes that right?

smh

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't do satire, never been good at it.



smh

Didn't see it was Borowitz at first. Shoot me.

[xrayzebra]

The reaction was orchestrated by BigCarbon as is all AGW denying. Anything, like a film, that comes along will be ridiculed and trashed by BigCarbon.

Hey boutons, how much "BigCarbon" do you think we would have to pile on to melt the Arctic Ice? And how long would it have to burn?
Just curious.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hey boutons, how much "BigCarbon" do you think we would have to pile on to melt the Arctic Ice? And how long would it have to burn?
Just curious.

You reconciled the ice shelf falling off the landmass and an increase of ice in the sea? Or are you going to just ignore it so you can blithely believe as you want to believe?

[TheSanityAnnex]

The article is about Perry and Rand disputing it. Your dumbass recognizes that right?:lmao

[TheSanityAnnex]

Didn't see it was Borowitz at first. Shoot me.It was only pointed out on three separate occasions before you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It was only pointed out on three separate occasions before you.

That it was written by Borowitz? No it wasn't.

The New Yorker and borowitz are not synonymous and they do legitimate journalism as well.

[TheSanityAnnex]

That it was written by Borowitz? No it wasn't.

The New Yorker and borowitz are not synonymous and they do legitimate journalism as well.

Never thought I'd see the day when Wild Cobra was out-dumbed by FuzzyLumpkins on the same page.

[Wild Cobra]

This three links are interesting:

Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change (http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full)

Meteorologists Reject U.N.’s Global Warming Claims (http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2010/02/01/meteorologists-reject-uns-global-warming-claims)

Shock Poll: Meteorologists Are Global Warming Skeptics (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/03/14/shock-poll-meteorologists-are-global-warming-skeptics/)

[TeyshaBlue]

Didn't see it was Borowitz at first. Shoot me.

If Borowitz were actually funny, it would be easier to recognize his attempts at humor.
Don't know how the dude holds down that gig tbh.

[Wild Cobra]

If Borowitz were actually funny, it would be easier to recognize his attempts at humor.
Don't know how the dude holds down that gig tbh.
Because people like Fuzzy and Boutons believe it!

[xrayzebra]

You reconciled the ice shelf falling off the landmass and an increase of ice in the sea? Or are you going to just ignore it so you can blithely believe as you want to believe?

Why don't you explain it to me. Fall off the landmass. Hmmnm. How can that be, since the ice is melting from underneath, out of sight, out of mind so to speak, until the learned ones, such as you explain it all to us. And what would be the falling rate of this ice falling from the landmass? Since it is setting new records. Must be a sight to behold.

[TheSanityAnnex]

If Borowitz were actually funny, it would be easier to recognize his attempts at humor.
Or one could choose to, you know, actually read the article. Instead one chose to call someone a dumbass for not understanding the article, all the while not understanding the article and making a dumbass of one's self.

[pgardn]

Yes, I know. The indoctrinated youth like you don't care about the facts.

So what are the facts WC?

[Wild Cobra]

So what are the facts WC?
Did you see post 1261?



Our climate is always changing, I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it, and I do not believe that the laws that they propose we pass will do anything about it, except it will destroy our economy.

Then there are the facts that climate change has some normal long term patterns. Patterns that young people haven't see repeat, therefore are easily duped.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why don't you explain it to me. Fall off the landmass. Hmmnm. How can that be, since the ice is melting from underneath, out of sight, out of mind so to speak, until the learned ones, such as you explain it all to us. And what would be the falling rate of this ice falling from the landmass? Since it is setting new records. Must be a sight to behold.

Us? No it is just you here. If other people want to come in and say that you are their proxy then fine but until then speak for yourself.

Much of the actual earth under the ice in anarctica is below sea level. That and capillary action.

And you seem unfamiliar with the rate of glacial drift. its always been moving. the issue is that now the momentum is such that the ridges and whatnot under the ice are not going to be able to create enough fricition to stop it.

This is all besides the point. Your insipid Al Gore article criticizing the work that was published in the journal Science cites increased ice in the ocean ice. This is ignorant in light of the work which talks of the ice migrating from over land into the ocean.

I will give you a hint though. Even at record speeds, glaciers move really really slow.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Never thought I'd see the day when Wild Cobra was out-dumbed by FuzzyLumpkins on the same page.

I can admit that I should have used better scrutiny. I am not going to abandon my ethic of demanding scrutiny in one's sources. It is what it is and I should have been more thorough.

You must be in dipshit heaven though: Fuzzy made a mistake. What you unsurprisingly fail to understand it is not about being infallible. Everyone makes mistakes. No, it is about the rate by which one makes mistakes and after me ridiculing you for as long as I have you must be pleased as a pig in shit.

[boutons_deux]

Climate Change Deemed Growing Security Threat by Military Researchers

The accelerating rate of climate change poses a severe risk to national security and acts as a catalyst for global political conflict, a report published Tuesday (http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/MAB_2014.pdf) by a leading government-funded military research organization concluded.

The Center for Naval Analyses Military Advisory Board (http://www.cna.org/) found that climate change-induced drought in the Middle East and Africa is leading to conflicts over food and water and escalating longstanding regional and ethnic tensions into violent clashes. The report also found that rising sea levels are putting people and food supplies in vulnerable coastal regions like eastern India, Bangladesh and the Mekong Delta in Vietnam at risk and could lead to a new wave of refugees.

In addition, the report predicted that an increase in catastrophic weather events around the world will create more demand for American troops, even as flooding and extreme weather events at home could damage naval ports and military bases.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/us/politics/climate-change-deemed-growing-security-threat-by-military-researchers.html?from=homepage




Large Companies Prepared to Pay Price on Carbon

More than two dozen of the nation’s biggest corporations, including the five major oil (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/energy-environment/oil-petroleum-and-gasoline/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) companies, are planning their future growth on the expectation that the government will force them to pay a price for carbon pollution as a way to control global warming (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier).

The development is a striking departure from conservative orthodoxy and a reflection of growing divisions between the Republican Party and its business supporters.

A new report by the environmental data company CDP has found that at least 29 companies, some with close ties to Republicans, including Exxon Mobil (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/exxon_mobil_corporation/index.html?inline=nyt-org), Walmart and American Electric Power, are incorporating a price on carbon into their long-term financial plans.

Both supporters and opponents of action to fight global warming say the development is significant because businesses that chart a financial course to make money in a carbon-constrained future could be more inclined to support policies that address climate change.

But unlike the five big oil companies — Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/conocophillips_inc/index.html?inline=nyt-org), Chevron (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/chevron_corporation/index.html?inline=nyt-org), BP (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/bp_plc/index.html?inline=nyt-org) and Shell, all major contributors to the Republican party — Koch Industries, a conglomerate that has played a major role in pushing Republicans away from action on climate change, is ramping up an already-aggressive campaign against climate policy — specifically against any tax or price on carbon. Owned by the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, the company includes oil refiners and the paper-goods company Georgia-Pacific.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/business/energy-environment/large-companies-prepared-to-pay-price-on-carbon.html

Kock Bros will buy/hire enough tea bagger Congresscritters and lobbyists to obstruct carbon taxing. ALL the Repugs campaiging against AGW and that warming is a planet-wide hoax.

[pgardn]

Did you see post 1261?



Then there are the facts that climate change has some normal long term patterns. Patterns that young people haven't see repeat, therefore are easily duped.

Yes.

So what.

Its a senator's opinion on a science topic.
You rely on senators and/or gadflys to inform you on science?

So old people (other than old scientists), because they have seen the changes, are more reputable?
You were born before the industrial revolution and took accurate world wide data... Where is your paper?

[TheSanityAnnex]

I can admit that I should have used better scrutiny. I am not going to abandon my ethic of demanding scrutiny in one's sources. It is what it is and I should have been more thorough.

You must be in dipshit heaven though: Fuzzy made a mistake. What you unsurprisingly fail to understand it is not about being infallible. Everyone makes mistakes. No, it is about the rate by which one makes mistakes and after me ridiculing you for as long as I have you must be pleased as a pig in shit.

Pigs aren't pleased in shit, quite the opposite actually. Your mistake rate is rising.

[xrayzebra]

Us? No it is just you here. If other people want to come in and say that you are their proxy then fine but until then speak for yourself.

Much of the actual earth under the ice in anarctica is below sea level. That and capillary action.

And you seem unfamiliar with the rate of glacial drift. its always been moving. the issue is that now the momentum is such that the ridges and whatnot under the ice are not going to be able to create enough fricition to stop it.

This is all besides the point. Your insipid Al Gore article criticizing the work that was published in the journal Science cites increased ice in the ocean ice. This is ignorant in light of the work which talks of the ice migrating from over land into the ocean.

I will give you a hint though. Even at record speeds, glaciers move really really slow.

Thank you, now I had to inform you that we have on 500 days left before the world as we know it is gone........

French Foreign Minister: '500 Days to Avoid Climate Chaos'


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/french-foreign-minister-500-days-avoid-climate-chaos_792736.html

I am so happy that you explained to me that "the" report as issued by the UN and the "consensus" of scientist are the truth, the absolute truth and nothing but the truth.

Oh, I do understand shift, or slip. The crust of the earth also "slips". And at a surprisingly fast rate. Of course you have heard of earthquakes, right?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Thank you, now I had to inform you that we have on 500 days left before the world as we know it is gone........

French Foreign Minister: '500 Days to Avoid Climate Chaos'


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/french-foreign-minister-500-days-avoid-climate-chaos_792736.html

I am so happy that you explained to me that "the" report as issued by the UN and the "consensus" of scientist are the truth, the absolute truth and nothing but the truth.

Oh, I do understand shift, or slip. The crust of the earth also "slips". And at a surprisingly fast rate. Of course you have heard of earthquakes, right?

We have established that your earlier link was ignorant bullshit and you have no refutation. I am not getting mired down with your red herrings.

[boutons_deux]

Fabius was referring to the next big United Nations climate conference, scheduled to open in Paris, France in November 2015, or in 565 days’ time

but the right-wing noise-hate machine goes full rabble rousing mode. France? Climate? rednecks, bubbas, red states hate them both.

[xrayzebra]

We have established that your earlier link was ignorant bullshit and you have no refutation. I am not getting mired down with your red herrings.

No it wasn't and you know it. It hit a nerve. But no matter. I will bet you something, I cant prove it and as you cant prove your theory, the world will be here in the next century and people just like we have now will still be yammering about climate change and the world is going to end if you don't live like I tell you to. Just as we have those now who say we are all going to starve to death in xxxx years. All this crap they spew is always, well not always, you do have the French, going to cause problems when we are all dead and gone.

Enjoy your life my friend because unless these idiots get a bunch of stupid laws passed, like they already have, I hope to enjoy what few years I have left. I intend to use all the gasoline I can afford to burn, hope they build more and more coal fired plants to generate electricity, use corn to feed beef (and for my corn on the cob) and what ever else pisses the Liberal idiots off. I think we should pass just one more law, every Conservative gets to boss around a Liberal around and make them go to church every Wednesday and Sunday. And listen to a prayer before every sporting event and graduation. And only Conservatives will be allowed to speak at Universities and anytime they want to. And that all college professors are required to vote a straight Tea Party ticket. Oh, I almost forgot, have a Christmas display on all public lands during the holiday.

C U

[pgardn]

Enjoy your life my friend because unless these idiots get a bunch of stupid laws passed, like they already have, I hope to enjoy what few years I have left. I intend to use all the gasoline I can afford to burn, hope they build more and more coal fired plants to generate electricity, use corn to feed beef (and for my corn on the cob) and what ever else pisses the Liberal idiots off. I think we should pass just one more law, every Conservative gets to boss around a Liberal around and make them go to church every Wednesday and Sunday. And listen to a prayer before every sporting event and graduation. And only Conservatives will be allowed to speak at Universities and anytime they want to. And that all college professors are required to vote a straight Tea Party ticket. Oh, I almost forgot, have a Christmas display on all public lands during the holiday.

C U

Wow.

These last few years are going to be pure ecstasy.
You are really a lucky guy to need such simple bizarre requests in the last part of your life.
Party on Garth...

xrayzebra epitaph:

While I rot 6 feet under the fungus that absorb my Earthly body will release CO2 into the atmosphere,
Death is good. My revenge is complete. God bless all greenhouse gases.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes.

So what.

Its a senator's opinion on a science topic.
You rely on senators and/or gadflys to inform you on science?

So old people (other than old scientists), because they have seen the changes, are more reputable?
You were born before the industrial revolution and took accurate world wide data... Where is your paper?
Not at all.

I posted his original words, showing what the New Yorker twisted them from.

Is that really so difficult to comprehend?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No it wasn't and you know it. It hit a nerve. But no matter. I will bet you something, I cant prove it and as you cant prove your theory, the world will be here in the next century and people just like we have now will still be yammering about climate change and the world is going to end if you don't live like I tell you to. Just as we have those now who say we are all going to starve to death in xxxx years. All this crap they spew is always, well not always, you do have the French, going to cause problems when we are all dead and gone.

Enjoy your life my friend because unless these idiots get a bunch of stupid laws passed, like they already have, I hope to enjoy what few years I have left. I intend to use all the gasoline I can afford to burn, hope they build more and more coal fired plants to generate electricity, use corn to feed beef (and for my corn on the cob) and what ever else pisses the Liberal idiots off. I think we should pass just one more law, every Conservative gets to boss around a Liberal around and make them go to church every Wednesday and Sunday. And listen to a prayer before every sporting event and graduation. And only Conservatives will be allowed to speak at Universities and anytime they want to. And that all college professors are required to vote a straight Tea Party ticket. Oh, I almost forgot, have a Christmas display on all public lands during the holiday.

C U

lol You hit a nerve?

I talk about capillary effect and the altitude of the earth under the ice sheets and you brought up plate tectonics. Your article was about sea ice and brought up Al Gore. Now you are babbling about armageddon scenarios that nobody but you is talking about.

You don't have any refutation and now you are mad about it. It is what it is.

[pgardn]

Not at all.

I posted his original words, showing what the New Yorker twisted them from.

Is that really so difficult to comprehend?

WC...

Comprehension? Really?

So where is your paper since you have lived through climate changes?
I mean hell, why take the science communities word when your are a virtual historical weather vane since you have... Lived through climate change.

The board awaits your paper.

[Wild Cobra]

WC...

Comprehension? Really?

So where is your paper since you have lived through climate changes?
I mean hell, why take the science communities word when your are a virtual historical weather vane since you have... Lived through climate change.

The board awaits your paper.
What an elitist attitude.

Ever talk to older people about their experiences of weather changes over the decades? It's a common experience among many. It's also common sense. I'm sorry if you think everything you have experienced needs to be peer reviewed.

[boutons_deux]

What an elitist attitude.

Ever talk to older people about their experiences of weather changes over the decades? It's a common experience among many. It's also common sense. I'm sorry if you think everything you have experienced needs to be peer reviewed.

old peoples' anecdotes aren't systematic, planet-wide science so they are useless for policy guidance.

[boutons_deux]

Colbert crushes climate deniers

http://www.alternet.org/video/hilarious-video-stephen-colbert-nails-climate-deniers?akid=11814.187590.bLoumc&rd=1&src=newsletter993002&t=11

[DarrinS]

Colbert crushes climate deniers

http://www.alternet.org/video/hilarious-video-stephen-colbert-nails-climate-deniers?akid=11814.187590.bLoumc&rd=1&src=newsletter993002&t=11


I don't think Colbert has ever made me laugh. Hard to believe he's going to take over for Letterman.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't think Colbert has ever made me laugh. Hard to believe he's going to take over for Letterman.
Hard to believe a comedian is taken as given factual information.

[boutons_deux]

Hard to believe a comedian is taken as given factual information.

he's funnier and more scientific than WC and all AGW deniers

his "fair and balanced" debate between 3 AGW deniers and 97 "scientists" was tremendous, exposing the typical 1 vs 1 false equivalence debate.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What an elitist attitude.

Ever talk to older people about their experiences of weather changes over the decades? It's a common experience among many. It's also common sense. I'm sorry if you think everything you have experienced needs to be peer reviewed.

WC has watched the weather channel for years. He knows climate inside and out.

such a stunning combo of pride and stupidity.

[xrayzebra]

Uh Oh........

Scientists In Cover-Up Of ‘Damaging’ Climate View

///snip///
A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process wrote that he strongly advised against publishing it because it was “less than helpful”.
///snip///

http://www.thegwpf.org/scientists-in-cover-up-of-damaging-climate-view/

New global-warming skeptic fears for 'safety'
'Enormous group pressure has become virtually unbearable to me'

http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/new-global-warming-skeptic-fears-for-safety/#xb2APEJhZbGc3XTO.99

Just the normal rational "global warming" group or is it "climate change". What's the money word today?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Uh Oh........

Scientists In Cover-Up Of ‘Damaging’ Climate View

///snip///
A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process wrote that he strongly advised against publishing it because it was “less than helpful”.
///snip///

http://www.thegwpf.org/scientists-in-cover-up-of-damaging-climate-view/

New global-warming skeptic fears for 'safety'
'Enormous group pressure has become virtually unbearable to me'

http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/new-global-warming-skeptic-fears-for-safety/#xb2APEJhZbGc3XTO.99

Just the normal rational "global warming" group or is it "climate change". What's the money word today?

You sources are just as valid as boutons alternet and nakedcapitalsim.

Your first link is from a UK oil industry think-tank that was the one pimping poptarts site recently. the other is right up there with infowars as it pertains to credibility.

Nice that you abandoned your plate tectonics stupidity but don't double down with this bullshit. You lack the ability to think for yourself is glaring. None of those links talk about the science they supposedly support.

[xrayzebra]

Here you go FuzzyBumkins. Don't want you to feel left out. The sky is falling, the sky is falling......Oh, my goodness, Washington D.C. we are doomed.

Can D.C. survive 'unstoppable' ice melt?

///snip///
"The worry to our children is, not only will this continue, but it might accelerate pretty fast," says Boicourt, of the University of Maryland.

"We do have at least a century to prepare," says Ekwurzel, "and in the case of the worst-case scenario, maybe a couple centuries. We should plan on one to four feet of sea-level rise happening over the course of this century, as a conservative estimate." "The worry to our children is, not only will this continue, but it might accelerate pretty fast," says Boicourt, of the University of Maryland.

"We do have at least a century to prepare," says Ekwurzel, "and in the case of the worst-case scenario, maybe a couple centuries. We should plan on one to four feet of sea-level rise happening over the course of this century, as a conservative estimate."
///snip///

http://wtop.com/884/3623052/District-under-water-Not-if-but-when

Of course we are speaking of D.C. so if they whole thing went under water tomorrow, no great lost.
But all these "experts" always pick a convenient time for things to occur. I mean how can you dispute something that is going to happen in 100 years.

[boutons_deux]

You sources are just as valid as boutons alternet and nakedcapitalsim.


FuzzyBrain STILL butthurt

[FuzzyLumpkins]

FuzzyBrain STILL butthurt

Is that what you tell yourself? That I am mad and that is somehow going to invalidate my point? That is pretty delusional.

I have no respect for you. That is different than anger.

Your are as left wing biased as his are to the right wing. Your dissembling to try to turn it on me doesn't change that.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Here you go FuzzyBumkins. Don't want you to feel left out. The sky is falling, the sky is falling......Oh, my goodness, Washington D.C. we are doomed.

Can D.C. survive 'unstoppable' ice melt?

///snip///
"The worry to our children is, not only will this continue, but it might accelerate pretty fast," says Boicourt, of the University of Maryland.

"We do have at least a century to prepare," says Ekwurzel, "and in the case of the worst-case scenario, maybe a couple centuries. We should plan on one to four feet of sea-level rise happening over the course of this century, as a conservative estimate." "The worry to our children is, not only will this continue, but it might accelerate pretty fast," says Boicourt, of the University of Maryland.

"We do have at least a century to prepare," says Ekwurzel, "and in the case of the worst-case scenario, maybe a couple centuries. We should plan on one to four feet of sea-level rise happening over the course of this century, as a conservative estimate."
///snip///

http://wtop.com/884/3623052/District-under-water-Not-if-but-when

Of course we are speaking of D.C. so if they whole thing went under water tomorrow, no great lost.
But all these "experts" always pick a convenient time for things to occur. I mean how can you dispute something that is going to happen in 100 years.

The model is quite simple to understand. Middle school science discusses the capillary effect and high school physics talks about the coefficient of friction. Momentum is a bit more advanced so college level physics.

The glacier is moving into the sea. It is what it is. You don't even argue that. Sorry that climate cycles and glaciers take long periods of time to move.

[xrayzebra]

Here you go Fuzzy. The original source that I found for my post on coverup. I figured you didn't have a subscription so I found another source. But I don't want you to feel neglected.

Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4091344.ece

[xrayzebra]

The model is quite simple to understand. Middle school science discusses the capillary effect and high school physics talks about the coefficient of friction. Momentum is a bit more advanced so college level physics.

The glacier is moving into the sea. It is what it is. You don't even argue that. Sorry that climate cycles and glaciers take long periods of time to move.

Damn, I'm impressed.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Here you go Fuzzy. The original source that I found for my post on coverup. I figured you didn't have a subscription so I found another source. But I don't want you to feel neglected.

Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4091344.ece

That link doesn't work as it just gives a blurb. The first one worked fine. You haven't figured out how to work the quote function which is sad and you are trying desperately to distractt from the science. Whining because glaciers take centuries to move is not a good argument.

The blurb talks of a claim with no substance behind it. The oil think tank scientists always get upset when they are rejected by the peer review process. They never talk about what they submitted. He doesn't even give a full account of what was said to him. He gives a throwaway phrase and that is it.

In this case, people didn't want to coauthor with him because he was taking money from that think tank. That is their prerogative.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The model is quite simple to understand. Middle school science discusses the capillary effect and high school physics talks about the coefficient of friction. Momentum is a bit more advanced so college level physics.

The glacier is moving into the sea. It is what it is. You don't even argue that. Sorry that climate cycles and glaciers take long periods of time to move.

Damn, I'm impressed.

Well I am not very impressed by you. Quite the opposite, magic sky man worshiper.

[xrayzebra]

Well I am not very impressed by you. Quite the opposite, magic sky man worshiper.

Gee, I am really hurt. I suppose I will have to just bear the thought that you aren't impressed. Actually, I was trying to be kind, you have a real problem with reading comprehension, but I am not surprised. You seem to have the uncanny ability to be sharply focused on just one side of an argument.

Just as President Obama says, let me be perfectly clear. I don't much give a damn what you think of me.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Gee, I am really hurt. I suppose I will have to just bear the thought that you aren't impressed. Actually, I was trying to be kind, you have a real problem with reading comprehension, but I am not surprised. You seem to have the uncanny ability to be sharply focused on just one side of an argument.

Just as President Obama says, let me be perfectly clear. I don't much give a damn what you think of me.

What other side have you presented? The output of a think tank with vested financial interest?

You have given up on every single substantive argument you have made.

[Th'Pusher]

Of course we are speaking of D.C. so if they whole thing went under water tomorrow, no great lost.

Except when your Medicare claim doesn't get processed or your SS check doesn't arrive.

You old fuck who live off the federal government while simultaneously whining about it disgust me.

[xrayzebra]

Except when your Medicare claim doesn't get processed or your SS check doesn't arrive.

You old fuck who live off the federal government while simultaneously whining about it disgust me.


Well, I live off of what I paid for and continue to pay for, you young twerp. And what whining.

[xrayzebra]

:lmao ahhhhhhhhh. vested financial interest.

[Th'Pusher]

Well, I live off of what I paid for and continue to pay for, you young twerp. And what whining.

Prove to me you paid in more than has been paid out on behalf of Medicare and social security.

[xrayzebra]

Prove to me you paid in more than has been paid out on behalf of Medicare and social security.

Prove to me I haven't!

[SnakeBoy]

You old fuck who live off the federal government while simultaneously whining about it disgust me.



I feel the same about people who think everyone except themselves should pay higher taxes.

[Th'Pusher]

Prove to me I haven't!

Statistically, there is a greater chance you'll receive more in benefits than you pay in. You might be an anomaly, but I doubt it. You're clearly not very intelligent and likely didn't make much money in your prime.

[xrayzebra]

Statistically, there is a greater chance you'll receive more in benefits than you pay in. You might be an anomaly, but I doubt it. You're clearly not very intelligent and likely didn't make much money in your prime.

Yeah, I can tell you are much more intelligent than I am.

[Wild Cobra]

Statistically, there is a greater chance you'll receive more in benefits than you pay in. You might be an anomaly, but I doubt it. You're clearly not very intelligent and likely didn't make much money in your prime.
Speak for yourself.

I wish I could have increased my 401k contributions with my SS. I will never get close to what I paid in with inflation. Compound interest since the early 70's adds up well. In XRay's case, I'll bet he paid in more than he will receive back too.

[Th'Pusher]

Speak for yourself.

I wish I could have increased my 401k contributions with my SS. I will never get close to what I paid in with inflation. Compound interest since the early 70's adds up well. In XRay's case, I'll bet he paid in more than he will receive back too.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/feb/01/medicare-and-social-security-what-you-paid-what-yo/

[xrayzebra]

President Obama’s big carbon crackdown readies for launch

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/carbon-crackdown-barack-obama-106783.html#ixzz31yhDUbHt

How brown do you like your electricity. Especially when it is about 102 degrees out.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

President Obama’s big carbon crackdown readies for launch

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/carbon-crackdown-barack-obama-106783.html#ixzz31yhDUbHt

How brown do you like your electricity. Especially when it is about 102 degrees out.

You going to pimp coal now?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yeah, I can tell you are much more intelligent than I am.

I can tell he is much more educated than you are. You do seem somewhat dull but I think that is as much from a lack of curiosity as it is a lack of intelligence. It is hard to attribute. You are a good minion parroting what you are fed diligently.

[boutons_deux]

President Obama’s big carbon crackdown readies for launch

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/carbon-crackdown-barack-obama-106783.html#ixzz31yhDUbHt

How brown do you like your electricity. Especially when it is about 102 degrees out.

Meanwhile, the Repugs OBSTRUCT the wind production tax credit renewal/extension (because they were blocked from adding an XL amendment), while OBSTRUCTING any and all reductions in the $Bs annually to BigCarbon in tax breaks, subsidies, etc.

[xrayzebra]

I can tell he is much more educated than you are. You do seem somewhat dull but I think that is as much from a lack of curiosity as it is a lack of intelligence. It is hard to attribute. You are a good minion parroting what you are fed diligently.

I am going to rename you FuzzyChumpkins. Look for it. If you couldn't insult someone, you would have nothing to say at all. :rolleyes

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I am going to rename you FuzzyChumpkins. Look for it. If you couldn't insult someone, you would have nothing to say at all. :rolleyes

What about my other post regarding coal? You just going to ignore that and posture this bullshit?

So the discussion of momentum, capillary action, sea ice versus glacier formation, the elevation of antarctica, and the substance of claims from the global warming policy center are all insults?

You gave up substantive discussion several days ago but still spam us with your oil lobby mailers like the death rattle of the coal industry that you posted for us. There is little substance to that, you won't discuss anything on merit and you did begin discussing your intelligence.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/feb/01/medicare-and-social-security-what-you-paid-what-yo/
With my lifetime earnings and using their 2 percent figure, I will still get less in SS than I contributed, unless I retire at 65 and live to be more than 115.

I have had several years where I get an effective X-Mas season bonuses, because I hit the max they take out in SS deductions, in October or November.

[Wild Cobra]

President Obama’s big carbon crackdown readies for launch

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/carbon-crackdown-barack-obama-106783.html#ixzz31yhDUbHt

How brown do you like your electricity. Especially when it is about 102 degrees out.
I would go along with cracking down on aerosols, but not CO2.

[Wild Cobra]

I am going to rename you FuzzyChumpkins. Look for it. If you couldn't insult someone, you would have nothing to say at all. :rolleyes
I thought he was a FuzzyBugger.

[xrayzebra]

What about my other post regarding coal? You just going to ignore that and posture this bullshit?

So the discussion of momentum, capillary action, sea ice versus glacier formation, the elevation of antarctica, and the substance of claims from the global warming policy center are all insults? (see below)

You gave up substantive discussion several days ago but still spam us with your oil lobby mailers like the death rattle of the coal industry that you posted for us. There is little substance to that, you won't discuss anything on merit and you did begin discussing your intelligence.

Like I have said before, your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. Read the article I posted and quit flapping your lips. Chumpkins.


Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center (for ill-informed people you, they are part of NOAA)



In the Southern Hemisphere, autumn is well underway, and sea ice extent is growing rapidly. Antarctic sea ice extent for April 2014 reached 9.00 million square kilometers (3.47 million square miles), the largest ice extent on record by a significant margin. This exceeds the past record for the satellite era by about 320,000 square kilometers (124,000 square miles), which was set in April 2008.
Antarctic ice extent graph

Figure 6b. The graph above shows Antarctic sea ice extent as of May 5, 2014, along with daily ice extent data for four previous years. 2014 is shown in blue, 2013 in green, 2011 in orange, 2007 in brown, and 2006 in purple. The 1981 to 2010 average is in dark gray. Sea Ice Index data.



Following near-record levels in March, a slightly higher-than-average rate of increase led to a record April ice extent, compared to the satellite record since 1978. During April, ice extent increased by an average of 112,600 square kilometers (43,500 square miles) per day. Ice extent on April 30 was a record for that day; record levels continue to be set in early May.

You will note they speak of sea ice.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Like I have said before, your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. Read the article I posted and quit flapping your lips. Chumpkins.


Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center (for ill-informed people you, they are part of NOAA)



In the Southern Hemisphere, autumn is well underway, and sea ice extent is growing rapidly. Antarctic sea ice extent for April 2014 reached 9.00 million square kilometers (3.47 million square miles), the largest ice extent on record by a significant margin. This exceeds the past record for the satellite era by about 320,000 square kilometers (124,000 square miles), which was set in April 2008.
Antarctic ice extent graph

Figure 6b. The graph above shows Antarctic sea ice extent as of May 5, 2014, along with daily ice extent data for four previous years. 2014 is shown in blue, 2013 in green, 2011 in orange, 2007 in brown, and 2006 in purple. The 1981 to 2010 average is in dark gray. Sea Ice Index data.



Following near-record levels in March, a slightly higher-than-average rate of increase led to a record April ice extent, compared to the satellite record since 1978. During April, ice extent increased by an average of 112,600 square kilometers (43,500 square miles) per day. Ice extent on April 30 was a record for that day; record levels continue to be set in early May.

You will note they speak of sea ice.

And you double down on the stupid.

Again, the glaciers are not 'sea ice.' They are depositing into the sea and that subsumes everything you are talking about here.

Thus me saying you are quite dull. If a glacier moves into the ocean then what do you think that will do to the amount of sea ice? Let's see some critical thinking.

For advanced study? If ice moves from above water and into the sea, what does that do to sea level. Here is a hint: when you add ice to a glass with water in it what happens to the water level?

[xrayzebra]

And you double down on the stupid.

Again, the glaciers are not 'sea ice.' They are depositing into the sea and that subsumes everything you are talking about here.

Thus me saying you are quite dull. If a glacier moves into the ocean then what do you think that will do to the amount of sea ice? Let's see some critical thinking.

For advanced study? If ice moves from above water and into the sea, what does that do to sea level. Here is a hint: when you add ice to a glass with water in it what happens to the water level?

I have to wonder, who turns on your computer in the morning. You are about the stupidest person I have ever seen. Do you know that there is a difference between apples and oranges? You insist on talking about a whole together different thing that what was posted.

I swear if you had a brain you would take it out and play with it.

End of discussion.

[Th'Pusher]

I have to wonder, who turns on your computer in the morning. You are about the stupidest person I have ever seen. Do you know that there is a difference between apples and oranges? You insist on talking about a whole together different thing that what was posted.

I swear if you had a brain you would take it out and play with it.

End of discussion.

:lol you're so completely lost.

End of discussion. :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I have to wonder, who turns on your computer in the morning. You are about the stupidest person I have ever seen. Do you know that there is a difference between apples and oranges? You insist on talking about a whole together different thing that what was posted.

I swear if you had a brain you would take it out and play with it.

End of discussion.

SO you whine about me only insulting you. I make a post about the science and then you resort to insulting me. Hypocrisy does seem to be a common trend amongst magic sky man worshipers.

I will part with the following. When you have a cup of ice water and you fill it to the brim, what happens to the water level as the ice melts?

Science: A glacier is migrating from above sea level in troughs and on land out into the open ocean. Relatively warm water is undermining the glacier and removing all friction. Although glacier movement is slow and precipitation in freezing months replenishes the glacier, the movement into the sea has passed the point of replenishment and is still accelerating. We estimate that the glacier at this current rate will take anywhere from 200 to 700 years to completely migrate but when that is complete the expected sea level rise will be over several feet.

Stupid: There is now more ice in the antarctic sea than ever before. AL GORE!!!

Science: I just said that the glacier ice is moving into the sea. Your observation is consistent with the mechanics we are discussing here.

Stupid: You're stupid.

[pgardn]

Like I have said before, your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. Read the article I posted and quit flapping your lips. Chumpkins.


Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center (for ill-informed people you, they are part of NOAA)



In the Southern Hemisphere, autumn is well underway, and sea ice extent is growing rapidly. Antarctic sea ice extent for April 2014 reached 9.00 million square kilometers (3.47 million square miles), the largest ice extent on record by a significant margin. This exceeds the past record for the satellite era by about 320,000 square kilometers (124,000 square miles), which was set in April 2008.
Antarctic ice extent graph

Figure 6b. The graph above shows Antarctic sea ice extent as of May 5, 2014, along with daily ice extent data for four previous years. 2014 is shown in blue, 2013 in green, 2011 in orange, 2007 in brown, and 2006 in purple. The 1981 to 2010 average is in dark gray. Sea Ice Index data.



Following near-record levels in March, a slightly higher-than-average rate of increase led to a record April ice extent, compared to the satellite record since 1978. During April, ice extent increased by an average of 112,600 square kilometers (43,500 square miles) per day. Ice extent on April 30 was a record for that day; record levels continue to be set in early May.

You will note they speak of sea ice.

What exactly are you hoping to illustrate with the above?

[Nbadan]

Stupid deniers...

Rubio Can't Name A Single Source Behind His Climate Denialism
by Annie Rose Strasser at Think Progress


Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) was unable to name a single source when asked on Tuesday to name the information he is reading that has led him to recently further cement himself as a denier of human-caused climate change.

At a National Press Club event, Rubio was asked by an audience member, via a moderator, “what information, reports, studies or otherwise are you relying on to inform and reach your conclusion that human activity is not to blame for climate change?”


But Rubio was unable to respond with a single source, and dodged the question.

“Well, again, headlines notwithstanding, I’ve never disputed that the climate is changing, and I’ve pointed out that climate to some extent is always changing, it’s never static....”

[xrayzebra]

Well Dan, this guy will make you happy he cites several concerns:

UN climate change expert reveals bias in global warming report

By Richard Tol
Published May 20, 2014

Three of the four installments of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which claims to show the state of the global climate system under stress, are now available.

All three show things are seriously amiss – although not necessarily with the climate itself. The final installment, to be published in September will further underline the need to reform the IPCC.

The IPCC has three working groups, each producing its own report. Working Group I, focusing on climate change itself, released its findings last September. Compared to the previous report, of 2007, it quietly revised downwards its estimate of eventual global warming.

The first rule of climate policy should be: do no harm to economic growth. But the IPCC was asked to focus on the risks of climate change alone, and those who volunteered to be its authors eagerly obliged.

The IPCC became less pessimistic about climate change, although its press release would not tell you so.

The report also illustrates just how outmoded the IPCC has become since it was founded in 1988. Its reports are written over a period of three years, and finished months before publication.

When preparations started on AR5, the world hadn’t warmed for 13 years. That is a bit odd, if you believe the models, but not odd enough to merit a lot of attention.

By the time the report was finished, however, it hadn’t warmed for 17 years. That is decidedly odd, but hard to accommodate in a near-final draft that has been through three rounds of review.

After the report was finalized, but before it was published, a number of papers appeared with hypotheses about the pause in warming. AR5 was out of date before it was released.

The IPCC model – every six years a big splash of climate analysis – is broken.

Working Group 2, published in March, and focusing on the impacts of climate change, had a different problem. It lies at the heart of the previous IPCC controversy. The scientific literature now acknowledges that many of the more worrying impacts of climate change are in fact symptoms of social mismanagement and underdevelopment.

The first rule of climate policy should be: do no harm to economic growth. But the IPCC was asked to focus on the risks of climate change alone, and those who volunteered to be its authors eagerly obliged. There is even a groundbreaking section on emerging risks.

The first paper on an issue is always dramatic. That is the only way to get something onto the scientific agenda. Follow-up papers then pooh-pooh the initial drama. But the IPCC chose not to wait for those follow-up papers.

IPCC reports are often two to three thousand pages long, but there are two or three main findings only.

Authors who want to see their long hours of IPCC work recognized should thus present their impact as worse than the next one.

It was this inbuilt alarmism that made me step down from the team that drafted the Summary for Policy Makers of Working Group 2. And indeed, the report was greeted by the four horsemen of the apocalypse: famine, pestilence, war, death all made headlines.

April’s Working Group 3 had yet another problem. Its focus, climate policy, is a hot political debate in many countries.

The Summary for Policy Makers is drafted by academics, but approved line-by-line by government representatives. Every clause that could possibly be used against a government position, either in a domestic debate or in international negotiations, was neutered or removed.

But the authors are at fault, too. A little bit of emission reduction costs little. But as targets get more stringent, costs escalate. Not so according to the IPCC: Very ambitious targets are said to be only slightly more expensive than less ambitious targets.

This surprising finding is a statistical fluke. Emission reduction is easy according to some studies, which duly explore very ambitious targets.

Emission reduction is hard according to other studies; very ambitious targets are prohibitively expensive and results not reported.

The surprisingly low cost of meeting very stringent emission reduction targets is the result of selection bias.

Oddly, the IPCC made the same mistake in the previous report.

The final part of the AR5 report, the Synthesis, will be published in September. It will fail to offer policy makers what they need to know: a systematic comparison of the costs of climate policy to its benefits, the avoided impacts of climate change.

Compared to the most famous cost-benefit analysis of them all, the Stern Review, published in 2006, the IPCC finds that the impacts of climate change are lower and the impacts of climate policy higher. But the IPCC will not suggest that the emission reduction targets recommended by Stern – global emissions 25 percent below 2005 levels by 2050; stabilize warming at 2-3˚C – are, perhaps, too stringent.

Given its flaws, should the IPCC be disbanded? That would be pointless. Climate change is a problem of the future. Climate policy responds to forecasts of the future rather than measurements of the past.

There are large climate bureaucracies around the world, who exist by virtue of climate science. If you abolish the IPCC, the climatocracy will create a new IPCC. The IPCC should therefore be reformed.

Here are some suggestions:

Away with the infrequent, massive set pieces. Away with alarmism – that has been tried for 25 years, with no discernible impact on emissions. Away with activists posing as scientists. Away with the freshman mistakes.

Just good, sober, solid science. Let the chips fall where they may.

Richard Tol is a professor of economics at the University of Sussex and the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. He has been involved in the IPCC since 1994.
FoxNews.com

[boutons_deux]

the plateau in warming doesn't change the FACT that the world's avg temp is highest in 4000 years

and where is the prediction that global warming would be monotonically increasing?

[xrayzebra]

Gee, 4000 years, are you sure. And climate change is going to affect us in 100 or so years or maybe centuries later. Great time frame.

[boutons_deux]

How El Niño Might Alter the Political Climate

El Niño is coming. Above-average sea surface temperatures have developed off the west coast of South America and seem poised to grow into a full-fledged El Niño event, in which unusually warm water temperatures spread across the equatorial East Pacific. Models indicate a 75 percent chance of El Niño this fall, which could bring devastating droughts to Australia or heavy rains to the southern United States.

The debate over climate change, however, brings additional significance to this round of El Niño, which will probably increase global temperatures, perhaps to the highest levels ever. It could even inaugurate a new era of more rapid warming, offering vindication to maligned climate models and re-energizing climate activists who have struggled to break through in a polarized political environment.

For a decade, climate scientists have battled a public-relations challenge: Even though atmospheric temperatures are higher than at any time in the past 4,000 years, surface temperature increases seem to have slowed down since 1998. The planet has gotten warmer over the last decade, but climate change skeptics have used this so-called hiatus or pause in warming to take aim at the accuracy of the climate models, which appeared to predict more significant warming than has so far happened.

Most climate scientists argue that the climate models never predicted steady, uninterrupted warming. Annual global temperatures always rise and fall on either side of the longer-term average, in much the same way that the stocks rise and fall from day to day, even during a strong market. They believe, based on computer simulations of hiatus periods and measurements from new floating sensors (http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/), they can account for the “missing” heat, much of which they believe is deep in the ocean, more than 700 meters below the water’s surface.

http://int.nyt.com/chartmaker/2014/05/19/1400525984486/artboard-600px.png

(http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/20/upshot/how-el-nino-might-alter-the-political-climate.html?from=homepage)Nonetheless, the hiatus helped climate-change skeptics earn mainstream adherents last year, as global temperatures hung perilously close to falling beneath even the lowest model projections. “Apocalypse perhaps a little later,” as The (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/20/upshot/how-el-nino-might-alter-the-political-climate.html?from=homepage)Economist (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21574490-climate-change-may-be-happening-more-slowly-scientists-thought-world-still-needs) put it.

There is some evidence that the number of Americans who don’t believe in global warming has increased by about 7 percentage points since the pause or hiatus began to gain mainstream news media attention, according to polling data provided by Edward Maibach, the director of the Center for Climate Change Communication (http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/)at George Mason University.

( :lol MSM? :lol no, since BigCarbon hired scientists whores, propagandists, LIARS, to deny AGW. MSM's "balance" bullshit is that AGW vs anti-AGW are equally plausible, when it's really 97 to 3 :lol )

But this year’s El Niño might represent a turning point. The oscillation between El Niño and La Niña, El Niño’s cold-water cousin, is part of the reason for slower atmospheric warming. Sea surface temperatures in the Pacific rise during El Niño and ultimately heat up the atmosphere in what Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, calls a “mini” global warming event. The reverse happens during La Niña.

The shifts between El Niño and La Niña offer an elegant explanation for at least some or perhaps most of the slowdown in atmospheric warming. The hiatus is said to have begun in 1998, just after the historic El Niño of 1997 and early 1998. La Niña has often prevailed since then, cooling the atmosphere.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/20/upshot/how-el-nino-might-alter-the-political-climate.html?from=homepage (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/20/upshot/how-el-nino-might-alter-the-political-climate.html?from=homepage)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well Dan, this guy will make you happy he cites several concerns:

UN climate change expert reveals bias in global warming report

By Richard Tol
Published May 20, 2014

Three of the four installments of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which claims to show the state of the global climate system under stress, are now available.

All three show things are seriously amiss – although not necessarily with the climate itself. The final installment, to be published in September will further underline the need to reform the IPCC.

The IPCC has three working groups, each producing its own report. Working Group I, focusing on climate change itself, released its findings last September. Compared to the previous report, of 2007, it quietly revised downwards its estimate of eventual global warming.

The first rule of climate policy should be: do no harm to economic growth. But the IPCC was asked to focus on the risks of climate change alone, and those who volunteered to be its authors eagerly obliged.

The IPCC became less pessimistic about climate change, although its press release would not tell you so.

The report also illustrates just how outmoded the IPCC has become since it was founded in 1988. Its reports are written over a period of three years, and finished months before publication.

When preparations started on AR5, the world hadn’t warmed for 13 years. That is a bit odd, if you believe the models, but not odd enough to merit a lot of attention.

By the time the report was finished, however, it hadn’t warmed for 17 years. That is decidedly odd, but hard to accommodate in a near-final draft that has been through three rounds of review.

After the report was finalized, but before it was published, a number of papers appeared with hypotheses about the pause in warming. AR5 was out of date before it was released.

The IPCC model – every six years a big splash of climate analysis – is broken.

Working Group 2, published in March, and focusing on the impacts of climate change, had a different problem. It lies at the heart of the previous IPCC controversy. The scientific literature now acknowledges that many of the more worrying impacts of climate change are in fact symptoms of social mismanagement and underdevelopment.

The first rule of climate policy should be: do no harm to economic growth. But the IPCC was asked to focus on the risks of climate change alone, and those who volunteered to be its authors eagerly obliged. There is even a groundbreaking section on emerging risks.

The first paper on an issue is always dramatic. That is the only way to get something onto the scientific agenda. Follow-up papers then pooh-pooh the initial drama. But the IPCC chose not to wait for those follow-up papers.

IPCC reports are often two to three thousand pages long, but there are two or three main findings only.

Authors who want to see their long hours of IPCC work recognized should thus present their impact as worse than the next one.

It was this inbuilt alarmism that made me step down from the team that drafted the Summary for Policy Makers of Working Group 2. And indeed, the report was greeted by the four horsemen of the apocalypse: famine, pestilence, war, death all made headlines.

April’s Working Group 3 had yet another problem. Its focus, climate policy, is a hot political debate in many countries.

The Summary for Policy Makers is drafted by academics, but approved line-by-line by government representatives. Every clause that could possibly be used against a government position, either in a domestic debate or in international negotiations, was neutered or removed.

But the authors are at fault, too. A little bit of emission reduction costs little. But as targets get more stringent, costs escalate. Not so according to the IPCC: Very ambitious targets are said to be only slightly more expensive than less ambitious targets.

This surprising finding is a statistical fluke. Emission reduction is easy according to some studies, which duly explore very ambitious targets.

Emission reduction is hard according to other studies; very ambitious targets are prohibitively expensive and results not reported.

The surprisingly low cost of meeting very stringent emission reduction targets is the result of selection bias.

Oddly, the IPCC made the same mistake in the previous report.

The final part of the AR5 report, the Synthesis, will be published in September. It will fail to offer policy makers what they need to know: a systematic comparison of the costs of climate policy to its benefits, the avoided impacts of climate change.

Compared to the most famous cost-benefit analysis of them all, the Stern Review, published in 2006, the IPCC finds that the impacts of climate change are lower and the impacts of climate policy higher. But the IPCC will not suggest that the emission reduction targets recommended by Stern – global emissions 25 percent below 2005 levels by 2050; stabilize warming at 2-3˚C – are, perhaps, too stringent.

Given its flaws, should the IPCC be disbanded? That would be pointless. Climate change is a problem of the future. Climate policy responds to forecasts of the future rather than measurements of the past.

There are large climate bureaucracies around the world, who exist by virtue of climate science. If you abolish the IPCC, the climatocracy will create a new IPCC. The IPCC should therefore be reformed.

Here are some suggestions:

Away with the infrequent, massive set pieces. Away with alarmism – that has been tried for 25 years, with no discernible impact on emissions. Away with activists posing as scientists. Away with the freshman mistakes.

Just good, sober, solid science. Let the chips fall where they may.

Richard Tol is a professor of economics at the University of Sussex and the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. He has been involved in the IPCC since 1994.
FoxNews.com

Nice. You found an economist who was brought in to calculate the economic impacts making claims that the Earth is not warming.

At no point does he try to quantify anything. He just lumps all other attempts at quantification together and blanket dismisses them as alarmist.

I invite him to read the BEST analysis and revisit his claims.

[MannyIsGod]

Its far from a certainty, but it looks like this El Nino will come and it will be on the moderate to strong side. This year is already very very warm Its sixth all time so far, but April was tied with 2010 as the hottest ever. There's a really good chance that with a moderate to strong El Nino either this year or 2015 will set the record. They may both set it.

As I said, its not certain, but with all the heat in the ocean an El Nino will probably make it happen.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Its far from a certainty, but it looks like this El Nino will come and it will be on the moderate to strong side. This year is already very very warm Its sixth all time so far, but April was tied with 2010 as the hottest ever. There's a really good chance that with a moderate to strong El Nino either this year or 2015 will set the record. They may both set it.

As I said, its not certain, but with all the heat in the ocean an El Nino will probably make it happen.

Fuck you. A cold front came through Texas just a week ago. . .

I wish periodicity was more intuitive in general and that America's trig teachers were better at teaching intuition regarding cycles specifically.

[DarrinS]

Hot: we're all gonna die
Cold: weather is not climate, you idiot

[RandomGuy]

Like I have said before, your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. Read the article I posted and quit flapping your lips. Chumpkins.


Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center (for ill-informed people you, they are part of NOAA)



In the Southern Hemisphere, autumn is well underway, and sea ice extent is growing rapidly. Antarctic sea ice extent for April 2014 reached 9.00 million square kilometers (3.47 million square miles), the largest ice extent on record by a significant margin. This exceeds the past record for the satellite era by about 320,000 square kilometers (124,000 square miles), which was set in April 2008.
Antarctic ice extent graph

Figure 6b. The graph above shows Antarctic sea ice extent as of May 5, 2014, along with daily ice extent data for four previous years. 2014 is shown in blue, 2013 in green, 2011 in orange, 2007 in brown, and 2006 in purple. The 1981 to 2010 average is in dark gray. Sea Ice Index data.



Following near-record levels in March, a slightly higher-than-average rate of increase led to a record April ice extent, compared to the satellite record since 1978. During April, ice extent increased by an average of 112,600 square kilometers (43,500 square miles) per day. Ice extent on April 30 was a record for that day; record levels continue to be set in early May.

You will note they speak of sea ice.

Periodic ice coverage is meaningless without wider context. This is what is known as cherry-picking.

How thick is the ice cover? what is the volume, what does it imply, what is the other pole doing? etc, etc, etc.

It is possible for there to be more surface area of ice, but less volume. What does your linked report say about that? (ok it wasn't linked, but I found the information anyway).

This is not convincing evidence. This is simply poor reasoning.

[RandomGuy]

Hot: we're all gonna die
Cold: weather is not climate, you idiot

Climate change is man-made: environmentalist hysteria
Climate change isn't real and/or natural: solid science.

Get off the stage.

[Wild Cobra]

Periodic ice coverage is meaningless without wider context. This is what is known as cherry-picking.

How thick is the ice cover? what is the volume, what does it imply, what is the other pole doing? etc, etc, etc.

It is possible for there to be more surface area of ice, but less volume. What does your linked report say about that? (ok it wasn't linked, but I found the information anyway).

This is not convincing evidence. This is simply poor reasoning.
All true, but the hysteria over our limited time of being able to determine ice mass is completely laughable. Now if we had satellite records dating back thousands of years, that would be different. We only have conjecture. Same with other climate scare tactics. We simply do not have proper evaluations comparable to what we see today.

[Wild Cobra]

Climate change is man-made: environmentalist hysteria
Climate change isn't real and/or natural: solid science.

Get off the stage.
That's right, jump to the extreme conclusion. Do you really like being seen as not credible?

[DarrinS]

Climate change is man-made: environmentalist hysteria
Climate change isn't real and/or natural: solid science.

Get off the stage.


AGW is real. CAGW is science fiction.

[RandomGuy]

That's right, jump to the extreme conclusion. Do you really like being seen as not credible?

Um, you do realize my post was satire on the way Darrin phrased his extemist post.

[Wild Cobra]

Um, you do realize my post was satire on the way Darrin phrased his extemist post.

I thought you were posting based on his satire. Didn't you didn't see his satire?

[MannyIsGod]

AGW is real. CAGW is science fiction.

Is the IPCC account of what will happen science fiction?

[Asshole]

Fuck you. A cold front came through Texas just a week ago. . .

I wish periodicity was more intuitive in general and that America's trig teachers were better at teaching intuition regarding cycles specifically.

Ya, freezing cold it was. I wish teachers would teach their cycles more, too.

[xrayzebra]

Is the IPCC account of what will happen science fiction?

Is it? You tell me. They have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar on several occasions and some of their biggest supporters are in it for the big bucks. Many of the so called "research" projects keep many of the "consensus" in cigarette money.

IMO, if they are correct is will be an accident that they are. Climate is going to change, whether mankind is on this earth or not. It has in the past, it has warmed/frozen and on an almost constant basis. One thing you can count on: it will not stay static.

You want the truth of the matter, take the money out of it and politics and then maybe someone will come up with an answer that everyone believes.

[MannyIsGod]

Is it? You tell me. They have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar on several occasions and some of their biggest supporters are in it for the big bucks. Many of the so called "research" projects keep many of the "consensus" in cigarette money.

IMO, if they are correct is will be an accident that they are. Climate is going to change, whether mankind is on this earth or not. It has in the past, it has warmed/frozen and on an almost constant basis. One thing you can count on: it will not stay static.

You want the truth of the matter, take the money out of it and politics and then maybe someone will come up with an answer that everyone believes.

I've learned over time its pointless to argue with you. One of the reasons is that because you make outright lies such as what I bolded.

[DarrinS]

And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the publics imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This double ethical bind which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

[MannyIsGod]

So why can't you answer a direct question with a direct answer? It wasn't a difficult question. Why do you feel the need to dance around direct questions on the subject all the time?

[xrayzebra]

I've learned over time its pointless to argue with you. One of the reasons is that because you make outright lies such as what I bolded.


You gotta be kidding me. Outright lies, do you read anything except progressive website. Live in ignorance. I have posted plenty of links to these "outright lies".

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You gotta be kidding me. Outright lies, do you read anything except progressive website. Live in ignorance. I have posted plenty of links to these "outright lies".

Actually, you have linked no website at all for your claims. Please stop being a lying piece of shit like Darrin.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So why can't you answer a direct question with a direct answer? It wasn't a difficult question. Why do you feel the need to dance around direct questions on the subject all the time?

He isn't going to discuss the science. He used to but then we get down into it he ends up looking stupid and by now he knows he isn't going to win arguing that.

If you are shilling and you are trying to encourage people to not support policy to respond to a potential threat then what are you going to do? Do not argue the loser but instead hedge on the significance. If it is insignificant then who cares after right?

I will say that your arguments are never going to convince him but it may well convince someone who is on the fence. After all this time, anyone who has read WC, Darrin, god boy and our responses know what is up. Look to that. Don't look to them. They are dumbasses and want you to quit in exasperation so they can spam their GWPC mailers without pushback..

[DarrinS]

Actually, you have linked no website at all for your claims. Please stop being a lying piece of shit like Darrin.


Fuzzy with the unoriginal ad hominem bads

[DarrinS]

Is the IPCC account of what will happen science fiction?

They aren't off to a good start.

[DarrinS]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY

[MannyIsGod]

They aren't off to a good start.

Its amazing how much you dodge a simple question. Fear of the answer I guess.

Its on me though. I know your game by now and I still attempt to engage you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy with the unoriginal ad hominem bads

The truth of a statement is the entire point. At least it is to me. You on the other hand argue for outcomes and don't care about the truth in much anything.

You have been sitting here telling stories about how scientists tell tall tales and not to believe them then he comes in with that hyperbole and you give him a pass? Logical consistency has never been a strong point for you.

[DarrinS]

Its amazing how much you dodge a simple question. Fear of the answer I guess.

Its on me though. I know your game by now and I still attempt to engage you.

I don't think computer modeled predictions about the future are good science if the predictions don't match observations.

So far, their models haven't been good predictors.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't think computer modeled predictions about the future are good science if the predictions don't match observations.

So far, their models haven't been good predictors.
Especially when 95% of the computer models agree that the observations must be wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

Is the IPCC account of what will happen science fiction?
They took the alarmist view and gave it a range. If their future predictions are correct, I will call them lucky.

They keep using the same flawed foundational studies for CO2 sensitivity. They don't account for indirect solar forcing.

They are a scientific joke!

[Wild Cobra]

So why can't you answer a direct question with a direct answer? It wasn't a difficult question. Why do you feel the need to dance around direct questions on the subject all the time?
It is science fiction. However, we have learned that science fiction sometimes comes true.

Good enough answer for you?

[Agloco]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY

You of all people posting this? Dick is rolling in his grave.

[Wild Cobra]

You of all people posting this? Dick is rolling in his grave.
Why?

Because Darrin is correct that the IPCC is wrong, because most of their their models are wrong?

[Agloco]

Why?

Because Darrin is correct that the IPCC is wrong, because most of their their models are wrong?

I don't give a rat's ass about the IPCC or their models. This is about Darrin and his cherrypicking in general. It's akin to an arsonist having posted a you-tube vid about fire safety.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't think computer modeled predictions about the future are good science if the predictions don't match observations.

So far, their models haven't been good predictors.

So you still basing that on the UAH equatorial readings vs the whole ocean models? you left the thread the last time I pointed it out. Are you going to do your typical intellectually dishonest coward routine?

[xrayzebra]

So why can't you answer a direct question with a direct answer? It wasn't a difficult question. Why do you feel the need to dance around direct questions on the subject all the time?

Dance, who's dancing. Here's a little number for you. Some more "consensus".

'I Recant' Says Author of Infamous Seventies Newsweek 'Global Cooling' Article

The author of a much-quoted 1975 Newsweek article predicting catastrophic global cooling now says it was a big mistake and the earth was warming all along. (H/T Climate Depot)

Peter Gwynne, began his piece by declaring portentously:

"There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth."

And this wasn't just a minority opinion, he went on to stress:

"Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in their view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic."

But now Gwynne has decided that this certainty was misplaced:

"While the hypotheses described in that original story seemed right at the time, climate scientists now know that they were seriously incomplete. Our climate is warming -- not cooling, as the original story suggested,"

Gwynne is apparently sick and tired of having the article rubbed in his face by "websites and individuals that dispute, disparage and deny the science that shows that humans are causing the Earth to warm." Especially painful for him - it seems - was the occasion when his piece was triumphantly brandished by comedian (and notorious skeptic) Dennis Miller on the Tonight Show in 2006.

Luckily, Gwynne is in no danger of being made to look a fool twice. He has now chosen to place his faith in the expertise of perhaps the most widely respected, uncontroversial figures in the entire field of climate science - a man he quotes approvingly throughout his recantation.

"There's no serious dispute any more about whether the globe is warming, whether humans are responsible, and whether we will see large and dangerous changes in the future – in the words of the National Academy of Sciences – which we didn't know in the 1970s," said Michael Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University in University Park. He added that nearly every U.S. scientific society has assessed the evidence and come to the same conclusion.

Gwynne concludes by sounding a warning note on the dangers of science writers failing to ask the right questions and reporting over-enthusiastically on the latest scare story.

"If I had applied those lessons back in 1975, I might not now be in the embarrassing position of being a cat's paw for denial of climate change," he says ruefully.

Indeed. But at least Gwynne has learned his lesson. Now that he believes in global warming - as all the experts do - no one is ever going to take him again for a gullible idiot who has failed to perform his due diligence on one of the most important scientific issues of the day.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/22/I-recant-says-author-of-infamous-Seventies-Newsweek-global-cooling-article


You just gotta love it. Guess he wasn't getting any research money.

[boutons_deux]

Dance, who's dancing. Here's a little number for you. Some more "consensus".

'I Recant' Says Author of Infamous Seventies Newsweek 'Global Cooling' Article

The author of a much-quoted 1975 Newsweek article predicting catastrophic global cooling now says it was a big mistake and the earth was warming all along. (H/T Climate Depot)

Peter Gwynne, began his piece by declaring portentously:

"There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth."

And this wasn't just a minority opinion, he went on to stress:

"Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in their view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic."

But now Gwynne has decided that this certainty was misplaced:

"While the hypotheses described in that original story seemed right at the time, climate scientists now know that they were seriously incomplete. Our climate is warming -- not cooling, as the original story suggested,"

Gwynne is apparently sick and tired of having the article rubbed in his face by "websites and individuals that dispute, disparage and deny the science that shows that humans are causing the Earth to warm." Especially painful for him - it seems - was the occasion when his piece was triumphantly brandished by comedian (and notorious skeptic) Dennis Miller on the Tonight Show in 2006.

Luckily, Gwynne is in no danger of being made to look a fool twice. He has now chosen to place his faith in the expertise of perhaps the most widely respected, uncontroversial figures in the entire field of climate science - a man he quotes approvingly throughout his recantation.

"There's no serious dispute any more about whether the globe is warming, whether humans are responsible, and whether we will see large and dangerous changes in the future – in the words of the National Academy of Sciences – which we didn't know in the 1970s," said Michael Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University in University Park. He added that nearly every U.S. scientific society has assessed the evidence and come to the same conclusion.

Gwynne concludes by sounding a warning note on the dangers of science writers failing to ask the right questions and reporting over-enthusiastically on the latest scare story.

"If I had applied those lessons back in 1975, I might not now be in the embarrassing position of being a cat's paw for denial of climate change," he says ruefully.

Indeed. But at least Gwynne has learned his lesson. Now that he believes in global warming - as all the experts do - no one is ever going to take him again for a gullible idiot who has failed to perform his due diligence on one of the most important scientific issues of the day.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/22/I-recant-says-author-of-infamous-Seventies-Newsweek-global-cooling-article


You just gotta love it. Guess he wasn't getting any research money.

so scumbag site Breitbart is now supporting AGW?

btw, the "global cooling guy from 1975" cherry picked by BigCarbon propagandists to deny AGW parallels BigPharma and the entire medical industry cherry picking a single, debunked cholesterol study from the 1950s to construct the $100Bs cholesterol scam, ongoing.

[DarrinS]

I don't give a rat's ass about the IPCC or their models. This is about Darrin and his cherrypicking in general. It's akin to an arsonist having posted a you-tube vid about fire safety.

So, what are your thoughts about IPCC projections vs reality?

[DarrinS]

That Feynman video seemed to strike a nerve.

[xrayzebra]

This article reminds me of SpursTalk "Why I think Climate Change denial........."

A Heated Debate: Are Climate Scientists Being Forced to Toe the Line?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-scientists-mixed-over-controversy-surrounding-respected-researcher-a-971033.html

A long article, hence, I didn't post the complete thing. But very interesting.

[pgardn]

This article reminds me of SpursTalk "Why I think Climate Change denial........."

A Heated Debate: Are Climate Scientists Being Forced to Toe the Line?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-scientists-mixed-over-controversy-surrounding-respected-researcher-a-971033.html

A long article, hence, I didn't post the complete thing. But very interesting.

The scientist joined a political group after arguments about his paper? Bravo...

Thats not the way you do science; good papers, well done and peer reviewed that are contrary, can be absolutely invaluable. I have seen some very bizarre well done papers reviewed that pose some very interesting questions and ARE published and cherished because they open up new avenues of work.

This example did not. Do you actually understand the criticism coming from both sides?

[xrayzebra]

The scientist joined a political group after arguments about his paper? Bravo...

Thats not the way you do science; good papers, well done and peer reviewed that are contrary, can be absolutely invaluable. I have seen some very bizarre well done papers reviewed that pose some very interesting questions and ARE published and cherished because they open up new avenues of work.

This example did not. Do you actually understand the criticism coming from both sides?

Do you understand what I posted? Oh, never mind, I forgot you are an expert on science. :rolleyes

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This article reminds me of SpursTalk "Why I think Climate Change denial........."

A Heated Debate: Are Climate Scientists Being Forced to Toe the Line?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-scientists-mixed-over-controversy-surrounding-respected-researcher-a-971033.html

A long article, hence, I didn't post the complete thing. But very interesting.

It's not long and it goes to the heart of things very quickly. He went to go work for the oil companies at GWPC. You seem to be on their mailer because you certainly spam this thread with their shit. You familiar with the notion of a shill and how they are typically regarded?

Or do you really think that taking money from the oil lobby doesn't compromise one's objectivity?

[pgardn]

Do you understand what I posted? Oh, never mind, I forgot you are an expert on science. :rolleyes

Yes I do.

Yes I have to live by what a particular type of science finds. I have to be as close to correct as possible or most of what I do is fucked. I can't be an old man sitting around spewing forth what fits his political agenda.... Because, if it's not right, what I do will NOT work.

Do you get that? I need good answers. Not what some old man wants the answers to be.

[pgardn]

Yes I do.

Yes I have to live by what a particular type of science finds. I have to be as close to correct as possible or most of what I do is fucked. I can't be an old man sitting around spewing forth what fits his political agenda.... Because, if it's not right, what I do will NOT work.

Do you get that? I need good answers. Not what some old man wants the answers to be. So because of what you have seen and gathered as old man climate, I go with your expertise? If I do that in my work I will eventually get zero jobs, nothing will get modified properly. I don't get hired because nothing goes forward because it is WRONG.

Modified for X-ray forecasts.

[DarrinS]

It's not long and it goes to the heart of things very quickly. He went to go work for the oil companies at GWPC. You seem to be on their mailer because you certainly spam this thread with their shit. You familiar with the notion of a shill and how they are typically regarded?

Or do you really think that taking money from the oil lobby doesn't compromise one's objectivity?


http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2013/general-information/thank-you-to-our-sponsors/

[xrayzebra]

Modified for X-ray forecasts.

What part of my post is political, dummy. Read what I said. Not what you think I said. If you are a scientist then no wonder we are is so much trouble in this country. Damn like talking to a child.

[pgardn]

What part of my post is political, dummy. Read what I said. Not what you think I said. If you are a scientist then no wonder we are is so much trouble in this country. Damn like talking to a child.

I have read your posts.

Its clear where they are directed.

You don't care where most evidence points.
It matters a whole bunch to you and I but you like being lied to because it makes you comfortable.
You look ONLY for articles that support your notions and politics.

Go read your before I die post again.

[xrayzebra]

I am talking to a child.

[pgardn]

I am talking to a child.

You are not talking to anyone.

You have a love for CO2. I suggest dry ice.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't think computer modeled predictions about the future are good science if the predictions don't match observations.

So far, their models haven't been good predictors.


If I have a computer model for coin flips that simply goes off of them being 50/50 that is off after 20 flips and because we went 15-5 is it composed of bad science or is it simply not accurate over one trial due to short term variability?

If the models are off 50-100 years from now, then by all means declare the models wrong. Of course a few hot years such as the kind we're about to have with a strong El Nino (barring a volcanic eruption or other short term negative forcing event) and we'll be above the mean set by the IPCC. We're well within the range currently and it won't take much at all to get us to the upper range. The models were never intended to account for variability on the annual or decadal scale but on the century long time scales but that isn't important to people who want to cast doubt. The fact that even with a period of slower warming in the atmosphere we've begun to have serious consquences to climate change isn't important to people like you.

Its sad because you'd rather try to play a slimy middle ground where when the IPCC turns out to be absolutely correct 30 years from now you'll claim you supported them all along and you can't believe people didn't do anything. History is going to look down upon so many people and their idiotic positions.

[DarrinS]

If I have a computer model for coin flips that simply goes off of them being 50/50 that is off after 20 flips and because we went 15-5 is it composed of bad science or is it simply not accurate over one trial due to short term variability?


I'll admit, 17 years is not a long time. Lol "one trial".




If the models are off 50-100 years from now, then by all means declare the models wrong.


We'll all be dead -- how convenient. How about if the models are still off in 20 years, we can declare that they suck?




Its sad because you'd rather try to play a slimy middle ground where when the IPCC turns out to be absolutely correct 30 years from now you'll claim you supported them all along and you can't believe people didn't do anything.

No.

[DarrinS]

Speaking of "slimy", Bill Nye couldn't even demonstrate AGW in a lab, so he photoshopped his thermometer at 1:10.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v-w8Cyfoq8

[MannyIsGod]

Yeah you will Darrin. Just like you claim that you never say its not warming then post shit that says its not warming. You're the definition of talking out of both sides of your mouth.

[Wild Cobra]

What do you expect from someone with an honorary PHD?

[RandomGuy]

Dance, who's dancing. Here's a little number for you. Some more "consensus".

'I Recant' Says Author of Infamous Seventies Newsweek 'Global Cooling' Article

The author of a much-quoted 1975 Newsweek article predicting catastrophic global cooling now says it was a big mistake and the earth was warming all along. (H/T Climate Depot)

Peter Gwynne, began his piece by declaring portentously:

"There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth."

And this wasn't just a minority opinion, he went on to stress:

"Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in their view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic."

But now Gwynne has decided that this certainty was misplaced:

"While the hypotheses described in that original story seemed right at the time, climate scientists now know that they were seriously incomplete. Our climate is warming -- not cooling, as the original story suggested,"

Gwynne is apparently sick and tired of having the article rubbed in his face by "websites and individuals that dispute, disparage and deny the science that shows that humans are causing the Earth to warm." Especially painful for him - it seems - was the occasion when his piece was triumphantly brandished by comedian (and notorious skeptic) Dennis Miller on the Tonight Show in 2006.

Luckily, Gwynne is in no danger of being made to look a fool twice. He has now chosen to place his faith in the expertise of perhaps the most widely respected, uncontroversial figures in the entire field of climate science - a man he quotes approvingly throughout his recantation.

"There's no serious dispute any more about whether the globe is warming, whether humans are responsible, and whether we will see large and dangerous changes in the future – in the words of the National Academy of Sciences – which we didn't know in the 1970s," said Michael Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University in University Park. He added that nearly every U.S. scientific society has assessed the evidence and come to the same conclusion.

Gwynne concludes by sounding a warning note on the dangers of science writers failing to ask the right questions and reporting over-enthusiastically on the latest scare story.

"If I had applied those lessons back in 1975, I might not now be in the embarrassing position of being a cat's paw for denial of climate change," he says ruefully.

Indeed. But at least Gwynne has learned his lesson. Now that he believes in global warming - as all the experts do - no one is ever going to take him again for a gullible idiot who has failed to perform his due diligence on one of the most important scientific issues of the day.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/22/I-recant-says-author-of-infamous-Seventies-Newsweek-global-cooling-article


You just gotta love it. Guess he wasn't getting any research money.

I'm confused was this guy a scientist? Did he fake evidence?

[pgardn]

Speaking of "slimy", Bill Nye couldn't even demonstrate AGW in a lab, so he photoshopped his thermometer at 1:10.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v-w8Cyfoq8

Well hell, now I completely convinced all data and models are wrong.

[xrayzebra]

The scandal of fiddled global warming data
The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record

...
Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.
...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

[boutons_deux]

telegraph is no more believable than any right wing or Murdock rag, etc, etc.

Even a Repug Wall Streeter 0.01% shitbag admits AGW is true and leading to a catastrophe.

The Coming Climate Crash


This is a crisis we can’t afford to ignore. I feel as if I’m watching as we fly in slow motion on a collision course toward a giant mountain. We can see the crash coming, and yet we’re sitting on our hands rather than altering course.

We need to act now, even though there is much disagreement, including from members of my own Republican Party, on how to address this issue while remaining economically competitive. They’re right to consider the economic implications. But we must not lose sight of the profound economic risks of doing nothing.

The solution can be a fundamentally conservative one that will empower the marketplace to find the most efficient response. We can do this by putting a price on emissions of carbon dioxide — a carbon tax. Few in the United States now pay to emit this potent greenhouse gas into the atmosphere we all share. Putting a price on emissions will create incentives to develop new, cleaner energy technologies.

I’m a businessman, not a climatologist. But I’ve spent a considerable amount of time with climate scientists and economists who have devoted their careers to this issue. There is virtually no debate among them that the planet is warming and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/22/opinion/sunday/lessons-for-climate-change-in-the-2008-recession.html?_r=0

[MannyIsGod]

The scandal of fiddled global warming data
The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record

...
Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.
...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

Unscientific nut who's been descredited time and time again says that scientists are lying. People like you believe him even when evidence that is open for all to see says otherwise. This is worse than simple conformation bias, IMO.

[MannyIsGod]

Anyway, go to link for those who think this is some kind of NASA/NOAA conspiracy:

http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings


Furthermore, it was recently released that May 2014 was the hottest may globally on record. Every month that comes out like this (June has so far been extremely warm as well) really pushes us toward the hottest year on record. But sure, its cooling.

[SnakeBoy]

Its sad because you'd rather try to play a slimy middle ground where when the IPCC turns out to be absolutely correct 30 years from now you'll claim you supported them all along and you can't believe people didn't do anything. History is going to look down upon so many people and their idiotic positions.

What do you think should be done now to stop the projected warming of the next 30 years from occurring?

[Th'Pusher]

What do you think should be done now to stop the projected warming of the next 30 years from occurring?

Carbon tax.

[boutons_deux]

Carbon tax.

carbon tax to include carbon tax on transport fuel

Also renewal, expansion of the wind production tax credit.

Lots of stuff available, but BigCarbon and electric utilities will buy enough legislators, esp Repugs, to block nearly all of it.

[MannyIsGod]

What do you think should be done now to stop the projected warming of the next 30 years from occurring?

There's virtually nothing that can be done to prevent the warming in the next 30 years from occurring but there's a lot that can be done to prevent warming in the future from occurring in the next 30 years.

[Wild Cobra]

There's virtually nothing that can be done to prevent the warming in the next 30 years from occurring but there's a lot that can be done to prevent warming in the future from occurring in the next 30 years.

Well, we can stop the soot emissions that are melting the arctic ice, and we can reestablish a proper network of climate stations.

Get rid of FILNET data corruption.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2009.pdf

[xrayzebra]

Antarctica sets new record for sea ice area



NOAA’s temperature control knob for the past, the present, and maybe the future – July 1936 now hottest month again →
Antarctica sets new record for sea ice area
Posted on June 29, 2014 by Anthony Watts

by Harold Ambler

The sea ice surrounding Antarctica, which, as I reported in my book, has been steadily increasing throughout the period of satellite measurement that began in 1979, has hit a new all-time record high for areal coverage.

The new record anomaly for Southern Hemisphere sea ice, the ice encircling the southernmost continent, is 2.074 million square kilometers and was posted for the first time by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s The Cryosphere Today early Sunday morning.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/29/antarctica-sets-new-record-for-sea-ice-area/

[xrayzebra]

EDITORIAL: Rigged ‘science’
The Supreme Court swallows faked global warming data


A fractured Supreme Court on Monday largely upheld the Environmental Protection Agency’s radical rule designed to shut down the power plants that produce the most affordable electricity. The justices continue to accept the EPA’s labeling of carbon dioxide as a “pollutant.” This harmless gas, the agency insists, is melting the planet.

Only the brave deny man’s responsibility for super-heating the globe in precincts where the wise and wonderful (just ask them) gather to reassure each other than they know best. “We know the trends,” President Obama told the graduates at the University of California at Irvine the other day. “The 18 warmest years on record have all happened since you graduates were born.”

SEE ALSO: Obama mocks climate change skeptics as paranoid about ‘liberal plot’

The charts and graphs devised by NASA and the government’s other science agencies back up the president’s words. And well they should, because the charts, like the “science,” were faked.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/23/editorial-rigged-science/

[boutons_deux]

washingtontimes.com (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/23/editorial-rigged-science/)

:lol "Rev." moonbat comics :lol

[boutons_deux]

Another gift from TX to America, San Antonio's own old, white, inherited-wealth, (Christian "Scientist"?) Alamo Heights Lamar Smith

How One GOP-Controlled Committee Is Waging a War on Science

At a March 26 hearing of the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Republican congressmen took turns attacking President Obama's top science advisor, John Holdren. On climate change, their statements became increasingly heated, accusatory, and bizarre.

Southern California conservative Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) challenged Holdren on the fact that about 97 percent of the world's practicing climate scientists agree that human activity is responsible for climate change. "Why can't anybody admit that you've got a group of people putting out a bogus figure here?" he charged.

Rep. Bill Posey (R-Fla.) noted that the earth had warmed in between ice ages, without any people around. So how could humans be blamed for the current warming?

"Just because we're alive now," he reasoned, "the tectonic plate shifts aren't gonna stop, the hurricanes [and] tsunamis aren't gonna stop, the asteroid strikes aren't gonna stop."

Finally, Rep. Randy Weber (R-Texas), an air-conditioning company founder from Pearland, Texas, noted to Holdren, a climate scientist and MacArthur "Genius Grant" recipient, that "I may want to get your cell phone, because if we go through cycles of global warming and then back to global cooling, I need to know when to buy my long coat on sale."

Soon after, a Scientific American headline concluded that the committee was becoming "a national embarrassment."

Since Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) took over as chairman of the House Science Committee in the beginning of 2013, the GOP majority has been waging a war. Its enemies list is long: The Environmental Protection Agency. The National Science Foundation. Rules that prevent industries from polluting the air and groundwater. Climate scientists studying the effects of a warming planet.

The very notion of non-politicized, peer-reviewed scientific inquiry.

For years, the House Science Committee was a quiet congressional backwater. Typically, its most contentious battles were over the future of American space exploration.

Smith has changed that. The traditionally collegial committee has been pursuing a more aggressive and party-driven agenda –- one that's closely aligned with the GOP’s relentless promotion of the fossil-fuel industry. Though critics say Smith's campaign has been scattershot and at least somewhat dysfunctional, they're alarmed about what could result from the various bills he's pushed over the last 18 months.

Stocked with corporate-trained lobbyists in key staff positions, the committee's majority has repeatedly attacked the EPA from several different vantage points. The committee participated in the congressional GOP's efforts to block or limit virtually all regulations on coal, oil and natural gas facilities – including a reinvigorated effort to delegitimize and ultimately scrap the most important existing such laws like the Clean Air Act by tarnishing seminal studies conducted by researchers with Harvard University and the American Cancer Society. After encountering resistance to that effort, committee Republicans went much further by pushing a bill that would disallow the EPA from using any confidential data or information – a measure seemingly designed to completely disrupt its ability to protect the public.

The GOP majority likewise has taken the lead in efforts to place tight reins on the National Science Foundation by attempting to exert political control over federally funded scientific research, an effort that has science advocates up in arms.

Through the "EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act," the committee's majority is trying to alter the way the EPA selects and uses its internal Science Advisory Boards, which are meant to provide independent review of the science conducted by the agency. One of the bill's main consequences, a committee Democrat concluded, would be to ensure "an overrepresentation of industry voices" on the panels.

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/how-one-gop-controlled-committee-waging-war-science?akid=11970.187590.VAHehd&rd=1&src=newsletter1008010&t=7&paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark

Thanks, TX Repugs! All y'all rednecks and your politicians suck hind tit on boar hog.

[xrayzebra]

NOAA Reinstates July 1936 As The Hottest Month On Record


http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/noaa-quietly-reinstates-july-1936-as-the-hottest-month-on-record/#ixzz36BC86pdd

[RandomGuy]

EDITORIAL: Rigged ‘science’
The Supreme Court swallows faked global warming data


A fractured Supreme Court on Monday largely upheld the Environmental Protection Agency’s radical rule designed to shut down the power plants that produce the most affordable electricity. The justices continue to accept the EPA’s labeling of carbon dioxide as a “pollutant.” This harmless gas, the agency insists, is melting the planet.

Only the brave deny man’s responsibility for super-heating the globe in precincts where the wise and wonderful (just ask them) gather to reassure each other than they know best. “We know the trends,” President Obama told the graduates at the University of California at Irvine the other day. “The 18 warmest years on record have all happened since you graduates were born.”

SEE ALSO: Obama mocks climate change skeptics as paranoid about ‘liberal plot’

The charts and graphs devised by NASA and the government’s other science agencies back up the president’s words. And well they should, because the charts, like the “science,” were faked.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/23/editorial-rigged-science/

You aren't helping your case with snarky op-eds.

Snarky op-eds are exactly the kinds of things pseudoscientists do about things they don't like.

You are making the case of the OP for me.

Was that what you were trying to do?

[RandomGuy]

NOAA Reinstates July 1936 As The Hottest Month On Record


http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/noaa-quietly-reinstates-july-1936-as-the-hottest-month-on-record/#ixzz36BC86pdd


When asked about climate data adjustments by the DCNF back in April, NOAA send there have been “several scientific developments since 1989 and 1999 that have improved the understanding of the U.S. surface temperature record.”

“Many station observations that were confined to paper, especially from early in the 20th century, have been scanned and keyed and are now digitally available to inform these time series,” Deke Arndt, chief of NOAA’s Climate Monitoring Branch, told TheDCNF.

“In addition to the much larger number of stations available, the U.S. temperature time series is now informed by an improved suite of quality assurance algorithms than it was in the late 20th Century,” Deke said in an emailed statement.

Real science self-corrects when given the chance to add and improve data. This is what one would expect from an organization that was attempting to become as accurate as possible.

The reaction of the people that I am claiming to be pseudoscientists is pretty much in line with what one would expect from someone who does not hew to scientific rigors or think that scientific processes are somehow rigged by a conspiracy to produce results that contradict his pre-existing beliefs.


“This constant change from year to year of what is or is not the hottest month on record for the USA is not only unprofessional and embarrassing for NOAA, it’s bullshit of the highest order,” Watts [i.e. watts up with that-RG] wrote. “It can easily be solved by NOAA stopping the unsupportable practice of adjusting temperatures of the past so that the present looks different in context with the adjusted past and stop making data for weather stations that have long since closed.”

[RandomGuy]

Antarctica sets new record for sea ice area



NOAA’s temperature control knob for the past, the present, and maybe the future – July 1936 now hottest month again →
Antarctica sets new record for sea ice area
Posted on June 29, 2014 by Anthony Watts

by Harold Ambler

The sea ice surrounding Antarctica, which, as I reported in my book, has been steadily increasing throughout the period of satellite measurement that began in 1979, has hit a new all-time record high for areal coverage.

The new record anomaly for Southern Hemisphere sea ice, the ice encircling the southernmost continent, is 2.074 million square kilometers and was posted for the first time by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s The Cryosphere Today early Sunday morning.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/29/antarctica-sets-new-record-for-sea-ice-area/

Pseudoscientists cherry pick data that suits them, and ignore wider contexts.

This is the kind of thing that 9-11 twoofers have to do in order to maintain their inaccurate worldviews. Find the ONE bit of data to cling to, ignore anything else that contradicts it, and claim that anyone who puts forth data that contradicts this world view is part of the conspiracy.

Missing bits of context:
What about the land ice?
What is happening at the other pole?
How thick is the sea ice? (volume has three dimensions, length, width and depth, so it is possible for something to be longer and wider, but still have less volume).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/arctic-antarctic-sea-ice.htm


The Polar Prognosis
As thinner and younger ice is easier to melt, the rapid Arctic melt is set to continue; ice-free summers are now probably inevitable. In contrast, the Antarctic increase is occurring despite the warming of the Southern Ocean and is expected to reverse as the warming continues. Antarctic sea ice is just a distraction from the accelerating losses from ice sheets and the looming specter of a sea-ice-free Arctic.

[Wild Cobra]

Real science self-corrects when given the chance to add and improve data. This is what one would expect from an organization that was attempting to become as accurate as possible.
How do you improve data? We have a given temperature set, say from 1940. How do you improve it in 2014? By altering it to read what you want it to read?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How do you improve data? We have a given temperature set, say from 1940. How do you improve it in 2014? By altering it to read what you want it to read?

One of the major tenants of science is reproducibility.

You can increase the sample rate, increase sample locations, improve the detection equipment precision and accuracy, you can filter the datasets using various means. There are simple database structure changes that can improve efficiency and the like on the IT end.

the list goes on. That you have to ask this question just speaks to how profoundly ignorant you are.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Pseudoscientists cherry pick data that suits them, and ignore wider contexts.

This is the kind of thing that 9-11 twoofers have to do in order to maintain their inaccurate worldviews. Find the ONE bit of data to cling to, ignore anything else that contradicts it, and claim that anyone who puts forth data that contradicts this world view is part of the conspiracy.

Missing bits of context:
What about the land ice?
What is happening at the other pole?
How thick is the sea ice? (volume has three dimensions, length, width and depth, so it is possible for something to be longer and wider, but still have less volume).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/arctic-antarctic-sea-ice.htm

Your critical thinking hit the spot. From what I understand the Antarctic is swampy for lack of a better term with much of the inland being below sea level. It used to be a heap on top as millennia of precipitation was trapped there but warmer ocean water is undermining it and it is melting causing it to spread.

That there is more ice on the sea rather is not good. it means that it has migrated from land and ice does raise sea level when it does that.

[xrayzebra]

One of the major tenants of science is reproducibility.

You can increase the sample rate, increase sample locations, improve the detection equipment precision and accuracy, you can filter the datasets using various means. There are simple database structure changes that can improve efficiency and the like on the IT end.

the list goes on. That you have to ask this question just speaks to how profoundly ignorant you are.

Or you can just fake them like they have and make them support your theory.

[RandomGuy]

How do you improve data? We have a given temperature set, say from 1940. How do you improve it in 2014? By altering it to read what you want it to read?

You can improve data, if you either add to an existing database, or become aware, after the fact, that there is some in-built distortion.

Do you have any shred of evidence that, in this case, the modifications were deliberately to produce some desired outcome?

[RandomGuy]

Or you can just fake them like they have and make them support your theory.

Same question. Provide some proof of motive for this conspiracy.

I noted that you didn't seem too plussed that the watts article essentially cherry-picked the data he wanted.

Do you think that ignoring most of the evidence in favor of just the small part of it that seems to support your theory is honest?

[Wild Cobra]

You can improve data, if you either add to an existing database, or become aware, after the fact, that there is some in-built distortion.

Do you have any shred of evidence that, in this case, the modifications were deliberately to produce some desired outcome?
OK, you mean you can improve a data set.

The problem I have with the alarmists is they take the raw data and alter it. I see that as their method of improving it. I disagree. There is no way to know if it is being "improved" properly.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

OK, you mean you can improve a data set.

The problem I have with the alarmists is they take the raw data and alter it. I see that as their method of improving it. I disagree. There is no way to know if it is being "improved" properly.

Everything takes raw data and 'alters' it, ignorant fuck. In the WC world, planes don't fly and we cannot use the internet.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Or you can just fake them like they have and make them support your theory.

How would you know? The data sets are public record for NOAA, IPCC, BEST, etc. Your oilco think tanks have pored over them and the best you can get is apples and oranges comparisons from UAH and histrionics from your British think tanks that you keep posting.

In fact when the astrophysicists raised some legitimate questions concerning the solar cycle, they were all over it like flies on shot back in 2003. I thought it was compelling as it seemed to show that solar activity might be cause. It turns out exhaustively not to be the case but that was good science.

Something substantive can be brought forth if it was there and we both know that those you support have more than enough financial backing to produce whatever they need. That should tell you something that the best they can do is the shit that they mail you.

You probably think Alex Jones is credible as well.

[RandomGuy]

How do you improve data? We have a given temperature set, say from 1940. How do you improve it in 2014? By altering it to read what you want it to read?


You can improve data, if you either add to an existing database, or become aware, after the fact, that there is some in-built distortion.

Do you have any shred of evidence that, in this case, the modifications were deliberately to produce some desired outcome?


OK, you mean you can improve a data set.

The problem I have with the alarmists is they take the raw data and alter it. I see that as their method of improving it. I disagree. There is no way to know if it is being "improved" properly.


That didn't really answer my question.

Do you have any shred of evidence that, in this case, the modifications were deliberately done to produce some desired outcome?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Antarctica sets new record for sea ice area



NOAA’s temperature control knob for the past, the present, and maybe the future – July 1936 now hottest month again →
Antarctica sets new record for sea ice area
Posted on June 29, 2014 by Anthony Watts

by Harold Ambler

The sea ice surrounding Antarctica, which, as I reported in my book, has been steadily increasing throughout the period of satellite measurement that began in 1979, has hit a new all-time record high for areal coverage.

The new record anomaly for Southern Hemisphere sea ice, the ice encircling the southernmost continent, is 2.074 million square kilometers and was posted for the first time by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s The Cryosphere Today early Sunday morning.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/29/antarctica-sets-new-record-for-sea-ice-area/

you posted this shit in this same thread a month ago. Are you going senile and just don't remember what you post?

[xrayzebra]

Just like to rattle your chain.

[xrayzebra]

Same question. Provide some proof of motive for this conspiracy.

I noted that you didn't seem too plussed that the watts article essentially cherry-picked the data he wanted.

Do you think that ignoring most of the evidence in favor of just the small part of it that seems to support your theory is honest?

Climate Change Hoax Exposed
October 13, 2013 AFP


Censored portion of UN report leaked; says data exaggerated

By John Friend



Many scientists are extremely skeptical of the IPCC, its findings, and the very nature of the organization. Dr. Eric Karlstrom, Emeritus Professor of Geography at California State University – Stanislaus, argues that the IPCC has a political agenda promoted by international elites.

“The idea of a carbon footprint is pathetic and ludicrous propaganda, since CO2 is beneficial for life,” Dr. Karlstrom explained to AFP in an informal email exchange.

Dr. Karlstrom, who also manages a website, went on to explain the “global warming” hysteria, and it’s ultimate agenda:

“Global warming is phony science that was concocted to justify implementation of an international political agenda. The idea of using ‘man-caused global warming’ as a ‘surrogate for war’ and as a way to ‘destroy excess wealth’ originated in American and UN-related think tanks such as the Club of Rome back in the 60′s and 70′s. This pseudo-science is the centerpiece of a phony environmental movement by which the UN hopes to redistribute wealth in the world (toward the super-rich and away from the people) to de-industrialize the industrialized countries (via the UN Kyoto Protocol-type carbon taxes, cap and trade schemes, etc.), and radically reduce the human population.”

“The IPCC is essentially operating with pre-determined conclusions, namely that human activity and carbon emissions cause ‘global warming’ and other environmental and climate problems, even though there is little objective scientific evidence to demonstrate ‘global warming’ is in fact a real phenomenon,” Dr. Karlstrom says. Climate scientists working with the IPCC and other international bodies have been known to not only spin scientific data to fit their pre-determined conclusions, but also to outright fabricate “evidence” to support their idea of “man-made climate change.”

“Bottom line, they don’t want to share resources with the unwashed masses,” Dr. Karlstrom concludes. -

http://americanfreepress.net/?p=13240#sthash.GKtvgaGG.dpuf

[RandomGuy]

Climate Change Hoax Exposed
October 13, 2013 AFP


Censored portion of UN report leaked; says data exaggerated

By John Friend



Many scientists are extremely skeptical of the IPCC, its findings, and the very nature of the organization. Dr. Eric Karlstrom, Emeritus Professor of Geography at California State University – Stanislaus, argues that the IPCC has a political agenda promoted by international elites.

“The idea of a carbon footprint is pathetic and ludicrous propaganda, since CO2 is beneficial for life,” Dr. Karlstrom explained to AFP in an informal email exchange.

Dr. Karlstrom, who also manages a website, went on to explain the “global warming” hysteria, and it’s ultimate agenda:

“Global warming is phony science that was concocted to justify implementation of an international political agenda. The idea of using ‘man-caused global warming’ as a ‘surrogate for war’ and as a way to ‘destroy excess wealth’ originated in American and UN-related think tanks such as the Club of Rome back in the 60′s and 70′s. This pseudo-science is the centerpiece of a phony environmental movement by which the UN hopes to redistribute wealth in the world (toward the super-rich and away from the people) to de-industrialize the industrialized countries (via the UN Kyoto Protocol-type carbon taxes, cap and trade schemes, etc.), and radically reduce the human population.”

“The IPCC is essentially operating with pre-determined conclusions, namely that human activity and carbon emissions cause ‘global warming’ and other environmental and climate problems, even though there is little objective scientific evidence to demonstrate ‘global warming’ is in fact a real phenomenon,” Dr. Karlstrom says. Climate scientists working with the IPCC and other international bodies have been known to not only spin scientific data to fit their pre-determined conclusions, but also to outright fabricate “evidence” to support their idea of “man-made climate change.”

“Bottom line, they don’t want to share resources with the unwashed masses,” Dr. Karlstrom concludes. -

http://americanfreepress.net/?p=13240#sthash.GKtvgaGG.dpuf

Which part of that is evidence? Be specific. Tell me what part of that article you think is evidence.

[Wild Cobra]

Which part of that is evidence? Be specific. Tell me what part of that article you think is evidence.
You want Xray to be specific when you don't even understand the applicable sciences yourself? How would you know if he was right? I'll bet you would go to Skeptical Science blogs or Real Climate blogs for your reply.

As many times as I was specific about the climate sciences, you failed to understand. It's laughable, like when I explained to Fuzzy why 3 phase power was used. Did you understand that? I doubt it. I think Winehole understood it, but I don't think you did.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You want Xray to be specific when you don't even understand the applicable sciences yourself? How would you know if he was right? I'll bet you would go to Skeptical Science blogs or Real Climate blogs for your reply.

As many times as I was specific about the climate sciences, you failed to understand. It's laughable, like when I explained to Fuzzy why 3 phase power was used. Did you understand that? I doubt it. I think Winehole understood it, but I don't think you did.

Do you want to revisit the flywheel thread, dimwit?

You still cannot get get torque out of 180 degree phase and 3 phase smooths the rotation as opposed to single phase's stop start. The same principles hold true in all AC power transmissions including over power lines. What is sad is you still did not get it. You think they are two separate issues despite working with electric motors and power.

You did not even understand the function of a flywheel. You did not even know the properties of a capacitor because you thought large capacitances were impossible until recently and that they were only for car audio. this is what told me you were a parts changer because you work with run capacitors rating in the pF.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WG2AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

This is so fucking funny. I'm glad I selected "view post." I have FuzzyDumbkins in IGNORE, so I didn't see this till a few minutes ago.


Do you want to revisit the flywheel thread, dimwit?

Why? Do you not understand such a simple concept?



You still cannot get get torque out of 180 degree phase and 3 phase smooths the rotation as opposed to single phase's stop start. The same principles hold true in all AC power transmissions including over power lines. What is sad is you still did not get it. You think they are two separate issues despite working with electric motors and power.

Bullshit. Just proves you don't understand.

What do you call a fan motor that plugs into a house AC outlet? Refrigerator? Dryer? Washer?

Do they have no torque?

And yes. It is the smooth rotational force that 3 phase offers, but you never understood the smoothing I was trying to explain to your sorry ass those years back. Not until I shamed you into silence with the graph I made.

Few single phase motors are made above 1/2 HP. The 60 hz vibration component gets greater and greater with increased power consumption. That's why three phase is used. For smooth and efficient power transfer. Not to make it go "roundy roundy." the more mechanical vibration and noise made because the power is not a smooth transfer to rotational, the less efficient.



You did not even understand the function of a flywheel. You did not even know the properties of a capacitor because you thought large capacitances were impossible until recently and that they were only for car audio. this is what told me you were a parts changer because you work with run capacitors rating in the pF.
My God you are so fucking dumb. I never said impossible. There you go lying again. You cannot accept that I revised my statement on capacitors, but I still proved you don't understand series parallel circuits.

As for a flywheel, Just because you say I don't understand the rotational kinetic energy, doesn't make it so. Sure, a flywheel will smooth the ac hum out of the rotation, but at a loss of efficiency of power transfer.

You are so fucking laughably stupid...


this is what told me you were a parts changer because you work with run capacitors rating in the pF.
Your chain gets yanked easily. Doesn't it...

Remember this:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/science/Power2phase3phase.jpg (www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162742)

You went pretty silent about three phase after I posted and explained it.

Just how badly did I shame you?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL...

This is so fucking funny. I'm glad I selected "view post." I have FuzzyDumbkins in IGNORE, so I didn't see this till a few minutes ago.


Why? Do you not understand such a simple concept?


Bullshit. Just proves you don't understand.

What do you call a fan motor that plugs into a house AC outlet? Refrigerator? Dryer? Washer?

Do they have no torque?

And yes. It is the smooth rotational force that 3 phase offers, but you never understood the smoothing I was trying to explain to your sorry ass those years back. Not until I shamed you into silence with the graph I made.

Few single phase motors are made above 1/2 HP. The 60 hz vibration component gets greater and greater with increased power consumption. That's why three phase is used. For smooth and efficient power transfer. Not to make it go "roundy roundy." the more mechanical vibration and noise made because the power is not a smooth transfer to rotational, the less efficient.


My God you are so fucking dumb. I never said impossible. There you go lying again. You cannot accept that I revised my statement on capacitors, but I still proved you don't understand series parallel circuits.

As for a flywheel, Just because you say I don't understand the rotational kinetic energy, doesn't make it so. Sure, a flywheel will smooth the ac hum out of the rotation, but at a loss of efficiency of power transfer.

You are so fucking laughably stupid...


Your chain gets yanked easily. Doesn't it...

Remember this:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/science/Power2phase3phase.jpg (www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162742)

You went pretty silent about three phase after I posted and explained it.

Just how badly did I shame you?

So literally repeating what I just said is supposed to be compelling? :lol

You stated that flywheels do not store energy.

You said that capacitors were not that large and they only rated into the uF. I showed you a 1F cap and then you doubled down on the stupid by saying that caps that big were a recent phenomenon. At that point i explained to you how placing them in parallel increased capacitance and that they have been doing that for a century. Since that time you have tried this tactic of obfuscation. Nobody buys it.

I answered your question saying that it smoothed the stroke and you started going off about power transfer efficiency and going with this same tactic. I didn't ignore it. i just made of fun of you just like I do now. At that time you had no notion of motors and went on and on about power transmission never understanding that the issues were the same.

It is actually amusing watching you crow victory when its obvious that you do not understand the principles. Nice google on motors though, partschanger.

[Wild Cobra]

So literally repeating what I just said is supposed to be compelling? :lol

Bait taken I see!



You stated that flywheels do not store energy.

Liar.



You said that capacitors were not that large and they only rated into the uF. I showed you a 1F cap and then you doubled down on the stupid by saying that caps that big were a recent phenomenon. At that point i explained to you how placing them in parallel increased capacitance and that they have been doing that for a century. Since that time you have tried this tactic of obfuscation. Nobody buys it.

I have stated I was wrong about how well the technology has come. Your feeble mind cannot seem to move on.



I answered your question saying that it smoothed the stroke and you started going off about power transfer efficiency and going with this same tactic. I didn't ignore it. i just made of fun of you just like I do now. At that time you had no notion of motors and went on and on about power transmission never understanding that the issues were the same.

It is actually amusing watching you crow victory when its obvious that you do not understand the principles. Nice google on motors though, partschanger.
I see you have changed your mind, but are too much a pussy to admit it. At least I acknowledge I was wrong about a 1 farad capacitor being the size of a closet.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I was saying wind mills did not store rotational power like a Rotary UPS does. You misunderstood.

As for the rest of your dribble...

Show me a capacitor rated in farads. They are generally rated in micro-farads and below.

You show yourself unknowledgeable again. You make too many foolish assumptions.

As for voltage, 120/240 is nominal. It varies somewhat. How many times you going to expose your ass?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

OMG...

You haven't a clue. I understand AC power, and have worked with rotary UPS. Those things do not store rotational power.

Question for you to prove you don't understand AC power.

Why is commercial power and power generation three phase?

Why not one phase, two, four, or even five phase?

can you answer that without looking it up?

You have changed what you claim did not store rotational power several times now.

And like it is not lost on people that you are the one that claims he never said he doesn't like black people when you have a post saying that you don't like most black people. Call me a liar all you want but you are just sad.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

WC ran away. I win.

:lol

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...
Such a fool.

I have admitted I was wrong about the farad capacitor, yet your tiny mind can't let go of your singly victory.

I was saying windmills don't store rotary power like the rotary UPS does. I never implied there was no kinetic energy at all. Just not enough to matter.

Take you fake win. You so easily delude yourself.

I'm going to go back to ignoring you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol

[xrayzebra]

Global warming computer models confounded as Antarctic sea ice hits new record high with 2.1million square miles more than is usual for time of year

Ice is covering 16m sq km, more than 2.1m unusual for time of year
UN computer models say Antarctic ice should be in decline, not increasing

By David Rose

...snip...

It’s fair to say that this has been something of an embarrassment for climate modellers. But it doesn’t stop there.

In recent days a new scandal over the integrity of temperature data has emerged, this time in America, where it has been revealed as much as 40 per cent of temperature data there are not real thermometer readings.

Many temperature stations have closed, but rather than stop recording data from these posts, the authorities have taken the remarkable step of ‘estimating’ temperatures based on the records of surrounding stations.

So vast swathes of the data are actually from ‘zombie’ stations that have long since disappeared.

This is bad enough, but it has also been discovered that the US’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is using estimates even when perfectly good raw data is available to it – and that it has adjusted historical records.

Why should it do this?

Many have noted that the effect of all these changes is to produce a warmer present and a colder past, with the net result being the impression of much faster warming. They draw their conclusions accordingly.

...snip...



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681829/Global-warming-latest-Amount-Antarctic-sea-ice-hits-new-record-high.html#ixzz36h1MHcrI
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[Wild Cobra]

The observations must be wrong since 95% of the models disagree.

[RandomGuy]

You want Xray to be specific when you don't even understand the applicable sciences yourself? How would you know if he was right? I'll bet you would go to Skeptical Science blogs or Real Climate blogs for your reply.

As many times as I was specific about the climate sciences, you failed to understand. It's laughable, like when I explained to Fuzzy why 3 phase power was used. Did you understand that? I doubt it. I think Winehole understood it, but I don't think you did.

It was a fucking op-ed, dipshit. They didn't present any scientific evidence. That was kinda my point.

I understand the sciences passably enough, and you more than sufficiently enough to generally hold that your opinions are driven more by ego and confirmation bias than objective, evidence-based reality.

That you are foolish enough to start rambling without really looking at the links involved supports my assertion.

[Wild Cobra]

It was a fucking op-ed, dipshit. They didn't present any scientific evidence. That was kinda my point.

I understand the sciences passably enough, and you more than sufficiently enough to generally hold that your opinions are driven more by ego and confirmation bias than objective, evidence-based reality.

That you are foolish enough to start rambling without really looking at the links involved supports my assertion.
Funny. I see you as the dipshit that uses confirmation bias.

Remember this:


Hey I find all of this highly fascinating. I had heard the thing about three phases before, but never quite understood why they did it that way until WC posted the graph, showing how it normalizes the power.

When it comes to my arguments of technical matters, I am well above the average person. I forgot until I looked it up that you said what you did, and it was after LnGrrrR made a statement that gave me cause to elaborate. I very often forget I am talking above peoples understanding. I try to simplify things, but there is still so much lost, especially when I overestimate everyone elses understanding.

The biggest problem with so many of you assholes is you accuse rather than ask for elaboration. Maybe you can learn something if you ask, and listen instead of letting your ego get the better of you.

Fuzzy is the worse of you all. He is either genuinely obtuse and stupid, or a good troll. Either way, the likes of him should be banned.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Nice now he is bitching about me to you and trying to prop up his partschanging rep.

I just want to say that I was not even trying to create this tizzy he is in. He called me out.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

When someone calls you out and ends up putting you 'back to ignore' does that mean anything?

[boutons_deux]

More Americans believe in angels than humans’ role in global warminghttp://www.rawstory.com/rs/2009/12/08/americans-angels-humancaused-global-warming/

Religion makes you stupid and ignorant, esp the money-grubbing,show business American Protestant religions.

[Wild Cobra]

More Americans believe in angels than humans’ role in global warminghttp://www.rawstory.com/rs/2009/12/08/americans-angels-humancaused-global-warming/

Religion makes you stupid and ignorant, esp the money-grubbing,show business American Protestant religions.




The dogma of AGW has become a religion as well you know. Don't get me wrong, almost everybody believes in AGW. We just don't believe that CO2 can warm as much as is claimed.

The lower troposphere where our greenhouse gas warming occurs has more than 2% H2O in the atmosphere. The IPCC uses 278 ppm as a baseline for 1750. Alarmists now claim something like a 0.85 degree for today with CO2 levels now at 400 ppm. H2O and CO2 are the two major greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. It is claimed the earth would be -18 C and the greenhouse gasses increases to 14 C. We are now about 15C in modern times. Anyway, if you do the math, between CO2 and H2O, there was in 1750 a 32 degree increase for 20,278 of the two greenhouse gasses. The alarmists will tell us that raising these greenhouse gasses to 20,400 ppm increases the temperature by another 0.85 degrees.

That does not compute...

14.85 C / 14 C = 1.0607, or a 6% increase in the assumed greenhouse effect.

288 / 287.15 = 1.00296 This is a 0.3% increase.

What the alarmists are expecting us to accept is that a 0.3% increase in greenhouse gasses cause a 6% increase in greenhouse added temperature.

That does not compute...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuck yeah. WC can rebut IPCC with simple napkin math. Hell, he doesn't even have to do it. He just knows.

Yes the idea that CO2 absorbs photons and slowly radiates the absorbed energy is equivalent to resurrection.

Ice melting when it warms is just like Muhammad and his winged horse.

What we need now is for WC to try to explain the absorption spectrum for CO2 and try in his own words explain how it does not force warming. Then he can regale us more with 'warming drives CO2.' He much like TSA is dumb and doesn't understand mutual exclusivity and therefor cannot fathom what a feedback mechanism is.

[ErnestLynch]

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/03/prweb11708533.htm

[boutons_deux]

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/03/prweb11708533.htm

The Heartland Institute (http://www.heartland.org/) – which The Economist magazine in 2012 called “the world’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change” – is joining scores of other think tanks and advocacy groups to host the 9th International Conference on Climate Change (http://climateconference.heartland.org/) at the Mandalay Bay Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas.

:lol

[boutons_deux]

MediaTransparency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaTransparency) reported that Heartland received funding from politically conservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States) foundations such as the Castle Rock Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_Foundation), the Sarah Scaife Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Scaife_Foundation), the John M. Olin Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_M._Olin_Foundation), and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynde_and_Harry_Bradley_Foundation).[49] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#cite_note-51) In 2011, the Institute received $25,000 from the Charles G. Koch Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_G._Koch_Foundation).[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#cite_note-Gillis-17) The Charles Koch Foundation states that the contribution was "$25,000 to the Heartland Institute in 2011 for research in healthcare, not climate change, and this was the first and only donation the Foundation made to the institute in more than a decade".[50] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#cite_note-Koch_release-52)

Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Heartland Institute, including over $600,000 from ExxonMobil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil) between 1998 and 2005.[51] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#cite_note-nyt-skeptics-53) Greenpeace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace) reported that Heartland received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#cite_note-smh-23) In 2008, ExxonMobil said that they would stop funding to groups skeptical of climate warming, including Heartland.[51] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#cite_note-nyt-skeptics-53)[52] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#cite_note-54)[53] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#cite_note-55) Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, argued that ExxonMobil was simply distancing itself from Heartland out of concern for its public image.[51] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#cite_note-nyt-skeptics-53)

The Heartland Institute has also received funding and support from tobacco companies Philip Morris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Morris_USA),[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#cite_note-merchants2-38) Altria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altria) and Reynolds American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_American), and pharmaceutical industry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_industry) firms GlaxoSmithKline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GlaxoSmithKline), Pfizer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer) and Eli Lilly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_Lilly)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

[Wild Cobra]

MediaTransparency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaTransparency) reported that Heartland received funding from politically conservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States) foundations such as the Castle Rock Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_Foundation), the Sarah Scaife Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Scaife_Foundation), the John M. Olin Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_M._Olin_Foundation), and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynde_and_Harry_Bradley_Foundation).[49] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#cite_note-51) In 2011, the Institute received $25,000 from the Charles G. Koch Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_G._Koch_Foundation).[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#cite_note-Gillis-17) The Charles Koch Foundation states that the contribution was "$25,000 to the Heartland Institute in 2011 for research in healthcare, not climate change, and this was the first and only donation the Foundation made to the institute in more than a decade".[50] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#cite_note-Koch_release-52)

Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Heartland Institute, including over $600,000 from ExxonMobil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil) between 1998 and 2005.[51] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#cite_note-nyt-skeptics-53) Greenpeace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace) reported that Heartland received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#cite_note-smh-23) In 2008, ExxonMobil said that they would stop funding to groups skeptical of climate warming, including Heartland.[51] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#cite_note-nyt-skeptics-53)[52] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#cite_note-54)[53] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#cite_note-55) Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, argued that ExxonMobil was simply distancing itself from Heartland out of concern for its public image.[51] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#cite_note-nyt-skeptics-53)

The Heartland Institute has also received funding and support from tobacco companies Philip Morris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Morris_USA),[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#cite_note-merchants2-38) Altria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altria) and Reynolds American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_American), and pharmaceutical industry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_industry) firms GlaxoSmithKline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GlaxoSmithKline), Pfizer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer) and Eli Lilly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_Lilly)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute



Can't kill the message with anything valid, so you have to do so by association?

That is so fucking stupid.

[boutons_deux]

Can't kill the message with anything valid, so you have to do so by association?

That is so fucking stupid.

Heartland denies, and promotes LONG-TIME denial, AGW, the standard position of such whore orgs and "scientists" paid for by BigCarbon.

[Wild Cobra]

Heartland denies, and promotes LONG-TIME denial, AGW, the standard position of such whore orgs and "scientists" paid for by BigCarbon.

Who cares?

It doesn't matter.

It does not mean they lie. If that's you point, you should worry about those who contribute to the causes you support.

People who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones.

[boutons_deux]

Who cares?

It doesn't matter.

It does not mean they lie. If that's you point, you should worry about those who contribute to the causes you support.

People who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones.

They are ALL PAID TO LIE.

And you're a damn fool if you're not being paid to shill for BigCarbon.

Start something like Oregon Inbred Institute, and hold conferences denying AGW. BigCarbon checks will flow your way.

[Wild Cobra]

They are ALL PAID TO LIE.

And you're a damn fool if you're not being paid to shill for BigCarbon.

Start something like Oregon Inbred Institute, and hold conferences denying AGW. BigCarbon checks will flow your way.
Wow.

I pity you. You can't see past what your liberal talking points tell you to say.

[RandomGuy]

Funny. I see you as the dipshit that uses confirmation bias.

Remember this:

When it comes to my arguments of technical matters, I am well above the average person. I forgot until I looked it up that you said what you did, and it was after LnGrrrR made a statement that gave me cause to elaborate. I very often forget I am talking above peoples understanding. I try to simplify things, but there is still so much lost, especially when I overestimate everyone elses understanding.

The biggest problem with so many of you assholes is you accuse rather than ask for elaboration. Maybe you can learn something if you ask, and listen instead of letting your ego get the better of you.

Fuzzy is the worse of you all. He is either genuinely obtuse and stupid, or a good troll. Either way, the likes of him should be banned.

Dude, I would extend some modicum of trust on things that don't involve any kind of politics. Your political views poison your thinking on everything else.

One exception won't erase a very clear pattern of mal-formed thinking elsewhere.

[Wild Cobra]

Dude, I would extend some modicum of trust on things that don't involve any kind of politics. Your political views poison your thinking on everything else.

One exception won't erase a very clear pattern of mal-formed thinking elsewhere.
Maybe it's your viewpoint that's wrong? Maybe you are just opposed to my libertarian-right leanings with your own confirmation bias?

I have seen you and others that disagree with me to be rather authoritarian. No wonder everything I say politically is wrong in your eyes.

[boutons_deux]

Kentucky Republican: Climate change unproven because 'temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here' (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/03/1311565/-Missouri-Republican-Climate-change-unproven-because-temperature-on-Mars-is-exactly-as-it-is-here)

I don’t even know were to start on sharing some of the wisdom that was expressed by our state legislators during this hearing. No, actually I do. I give you the honorable Sen. Brandon Smith, R-Hazard:“As you (Energy & Environment Cabinet official) sit there in your chair with your data, we sit up here in ours with our data and our constituents and stuff behind us. I don’t want to get into the debate about climate change, but I will simply point out that I think in academia we all agree that the temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here. Nobody will dispute that. Yet there are no coal mines on Mars. There are no factories on Mars that I’m aware of.”

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/03/1311565/-Missouri-Republican-Climate-change-unproven-because-temperature-on-Mars-is-exactly-as-it-is-here?detail=email#

Kentucky! Repugs! Marans! :lol

[RandomGuy]

Maybe it's your viewpoint that's wrong? Maybe you are just opposed to my libertarian-right leanings with your own confirmation bias?

I have seen you and others that disagree with me to be rather authoritarian. No wonder everything I say politically is wrong in your eyes.

I am happy to change my mind given some evidence.

Feel free to point out any solid examples of confirmation bias.

You are wrong because what you say isn't supported by evidence fairly often.

[Wild Cobra]

Kentucky Republican: Climate change unproven because 'temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here' (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/03/1311565/-Missouri-Republican-Climate-change-unproven-because-temperature-on-Mars-is-exactly-as-it-is-here)

I don’t even know were to start on sharing some of the wisdom that was expressed by our state legislators during this hearing. No, actually I do. I give you the honorable Sen. Brandon Smith, R-Hazard:“As you (Energy & Environment Cabinet official) sit there in your chair with your data, we sit up here in ours with our data and our constituents and stuff behind us. I don’t want to get into the debate about climate change, but I will simply point out that I think in academia we all agree that the temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here. Nobody will dispute that. Yet there are no coal mines on Mars. There are no factories on Mars that I’m aware of.”

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/03/1311565/-Missouri-Republican-Climate-change-unproven-because-temperature-on-Mars-is-exactly-as-it-is-here?detail=email#

Kentucky! Repugs! Marans! :lol



Apparently, that was said on the 4th. I figure he misspoke, with the intent of saying that mars also warms and cools with the sun like the earth does.

[Wild Cobra]

I am happy to change my mind given some evidence.

Feel free to point out any solid examples of confirmation bias.

You are wrong because what you say isn't supported by evidence fairly often.
I'm not going to look for an example. It would be a waste of time. I'm just throwing the type of catch phrases back at you that you accuse me of with no merit. When discussing something, why do you do that instead of backing it up with facts?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Can't kill the message with anything valid, so you have to do so by association?

That is so fucking stupid.

This coming from the guy that spams about the science being a religion and how scientist are corrupted. You cannot even come up with a link that good.

Now you are being a dumb piece of shit. I take back the time that I told you that I was sorry for treating you poorly.

[RandomGuy]

I'm not going to look for an example. It would be a waste of time. I'm just throwing the type of catch phrases back at you that you accuse me of with no merit. When discussing something, why do you do that instead of backing it up with facts?

Something asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I have no confirmation bias, thank you.

[DarrinS]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY

[Wild Cobra]

Something asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I have no confirmation bias, thank you.

OK, believe as you wish.

[RandomGuy]

OK, believe as you wish.

Belief has nothing to do with it.

No evidence = No reason to accept as true.

Of course the more you make these charges and don't support them the lazier you seem.

You provide all the evidence of your mental laziness we need to believe that. :D

[Big Empty]

a cold front is gonna have the NE in the 50's and 40's...in JULY LMAO crazy.
http://www.weather.com/news/weather-forecast/cool-summer-pattern-july-20140709

It seems like many places can't shake the cool temperatures. After a harsh winter, the summer heat just can't seem to take hold for long. Some of these locations saw a cool summer last year and current indications are this could be repeated this year
A deep upper-level trough will dig into the Great Lakes region from Canada next week, which will bring another round of cool temperatures. This trough is very strong for mid July, in the heart of summer. Record cold temperatures are likely.
http://s.imwx.com/dru/2014/07/2eba7a2f-deca-41b9-b273-16fc36041b4f_320x180.jpg Upper-level pattern early to midweek, showing the trough in the Midwest and the ridge in the West.



Some cities have yet to hit 90 degrees this year and it looks like the 90-degree mark won't be seen anytime soon for those cities. Next week, morning temperatures will be in the 50s for many in the Midwest, while a few lucky locations will see temperatures dip into the 40s! It really won't feel like July, as there won't be a hint of muggy air for much of the Midwest and East.
Meanwhile, the heat will stay in the West, with no real heat waves in sight for the Midwest or Northeast. So enjoy the cool and comfortable conditions for now!

[pgardn]

a cold front is gonna have the NE in the 50's and 40's...in JULY LMAO crazy.
http://www.weather.com/news/weather-forecast/cool-summer-pattern-july-20140709

It seems like many places can't shake the cool temperatures. After a harsh winter, the summer heat just can't seem to take hold for long. Some of these locations saw a cool summer last year and current indications are this could be repeated this year
A deep upper-level trough will dig into the Great Lakes region from Canada next week, which will bring another round of cool temperatures. This trough is very strong for mid July, in the heart of summer. Record cold temperatures are likely.
http://s.imwx.com/dru/2014/07/2eba7a2f-deca-41b9-b273-16fc36041b4f_320x180.jpg Upper-level pattern early to midweek, showing the trough in the Midwest and the ridge in the West.



Some cities have yet to hit 90 degrees this year and it looks like the 90-degree mark won't be seen anytime soon for those cities. Next week, morning temperatures will be in the 50s for many in the Midwest, while a few lucky locations will see temperatures dip into the 40s! It really won't feel like July, as there won't be a hint of muggy air for much of the Midwest and East.
Meanwhile, the heat will stay in the West, with no real heat waves in sight for the Midwest or Northeast. So enjoy the cool and comfortable conditions for now!

So could you send this to SA ASAP?

[xrayzebra]

a cold front is gonna have the NE in the 50's and 40's...in JULY LMAO crazy.
http://www.weather.com/news/weather-forecast/cool-summer-pattern-july-20140709

It seems like many places can't shake the cool temperatures. After a harsh winter, the summer heat just can't seem to take hold for long. Some of these locations saw a cool summer last year and current indications are this could be repeated this year
A deep upper-level trough will dig into the Great Lakes region from Canada next week, which will bring another round of cool temperatures. This trough is very strong for mid July, in the heart of summer. Record cold temperatures are likely.
http://s.imwx.com/dru/2014/07/2eba7a2f-deca-41b9-b273-16fc36041b4f_320x180.jpg Upper-level pattern early to midweek, showing the trough in the Midwest and the ridge in the West.



Some cities have yet to hit 90 degrees this year and it looks like the 90-degree mark won't be seen anytime soon for those cities. Next week, morning temperatures will be in the 50s for many in the Midwest, while a few lucky locations will see temperatures dip into the 40s! It really won't feel like July, as there won't be a hint of muggy air for much of the Midwest and East.
Meanwhile, the heat will stay in the West, with no real heat waves in sight for the Midwest or Northeast. So enjoy the cool and comfortable conditions for now!


Oh, Dear! RG wont be happy about this, there is no scientific facts in your article.......tsk....tsk.... Damn global warming.

[pgardn]

Oh, Dear! RG wont be happy about this, there is no scientific facts in your article.......tsk....tsk.... Damn global warming.

Xray's back bedroom is cold right now...

This climate stuff is just silly when you have data right in your house.

[Wild Cobra]

Xray's back bedroom is cold right now...

This climate stuff is just silly when you have data right in your house.

Well, it's mid July and only 69F outside with 70% humidity.

At least my dehumidifier has it down to 52% in the house.

[pgardn]

Well, it's mid July and only 69F outside with 70% humidity.

At least my dehumidifier has it down to 52% in the house.

Well it's hot as hell here.

[Wild Cobra]

Well it's hot as hell here.
It should be warmer than it has been all year. Funny, because these last two years have been more humid. water is a greenhouse gas and suppose to warm farther.

Oh well, guess the warmers are wrong.

[pgardn]

It should be warmer than it has been all year. Funny, because these last two years have been more humid. water is a greenhouse gas and suppose to warm farther.

Oh well, guess the warmers are wrong.

Good use of extensive world wide data microcosm man.

And you are not very aware of the huge number of properties water has depending on drop size, heat of vaporization/ pressure in diff. situations.. But keep convincing yourself you know climate.

[DarrinS]

Good use of extensive world wide data microcosm man.



Meh, we're on year 18 of statistically insignificant global temp change

[Wild Cobra]

Good use of extensive world wide data microcosm man.

And you are not very aware of the huge number of properties water has depending on drop size, heat of vaporization/ pressure in diff. situations.. But keep convincing yourself you know climate.
Problem is, these warmer places seem to elude everyone. We all an average null...

[boutons_deux]

Climate science denier group must pay damages for frivolous lawsuit against UVA, scientist

Virginia's highest court has ruled that the American Tradition Institute (ATI), a free-market think tank that promotes climate science denial, must pay damages to the University of Virginia and former professor Michael Mann for filing a frivolous lawsuit against them. The decision comes in a case that has sparked controversy about the abuse of public records laws to harass climate scientists.

Mann, who now directs Penn State's Earth Systems Science Center, has been a target of climate science deniers for his research showing that the recent spike in global temperatures -- the so-called "hockey stick" graph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png) -- is linked to the burning of fossil fuels. A Facing South investigation (http://www.southernstudies.org/2011/10/special-investigation-whos-behind-the-information-attacks-on-climate-scientists.html) found that ATI had connections to fossil-fuel interests.

The group, which last year changed its name to the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (http://eelegal.org/)(EELI), is a spin-off of the American Tradition Partnership, a dark-money group that has been embroiled in campaign finance controversies (http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/director-of-shadowy-political-group-atp-resigns-group-faces-more/article_40305b71-fe68-572c-a52d-52ba983cf12e.html).

http://www.southernstudies.org/2014/07/climate-science-denier-group-must-pay-damages-for-.html

[DarrinS]

The climate consensus is not 97% – it’s 100% (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/11/the-climate-consensus-is-not-97-its-100/#more-112798)

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/clip_image002_thumb2.png?w=601&h=454

[pgardn]

Problem is, these warmer places seem to elude everyone. We all an average null...

Who is everyone?

Average null... Nope.

[pgardn]

Meh, we're on year 18 of statistically insignificant global temp change

Lets see your study?

[SnakeBoy]

So could you send this to SA ASAP?

We might get a little cooler midweek because of it but not much. It's supposed to be a side effect of Super Typhoon Neoguri .

[Wild Cobra]

The climate consensus is not 97% – it’s 100% (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/11/the-climate-consensus-is-not-97-its-100/#more-112798)

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/clip_image002_thumb2.png?w=601&h=454
They always get things wrong.

Maybe they should start studying real science instead of political science.

[DarrinS]

Lets see your study?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/04/the-pause-continues-still-no-global-warming-for-17-years-9-months/

[pgardn]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/04/the-pause-continues-still-no-global-warming-for-17-years-9-months/

Oh yes....

[Wild Cobra]

Thank God!

Global warming has returned!

All these tall fur trees surrounding me, and it hit 97 F today at my place, in the shade!

[pgardn]

Thank God!

Global warming has returned!

All these tall fur trees surrounding me, and it hit 97 F today at my place, in the shade!

Thats what they said in Yellowstone 1988.
Do you like your bread toasted?

[SnakeBoy]

Australia repeals maligned 2-year-old carbon tax

SYDNEY (AP) - Australia's government repealed a much-maligned carbon tax on the nation's worst greenhouse gas polluters on Thursday, ending years of contention over a measure that became political poison for the lawmakers who imposed it.

The Senate voted 39 to 32 to axe the 24.15 Australian dollar ($22.60) tax per metric ton of carbon dioxide that was introduced by the center-left Labor government in July 2012. Conservative lawmakers burst into applause as the final tally was announced.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott's conservative coalition government rose to power last year on the promise of getting rid of the tax, assuring voters that removing it would reduce household electricity bills. He plans to replace the measure with a taxpayer-financed AU$2.55 billion fund to pay industry incentives to use cleaner energy.

"Today, the tax that you voted to get rid of is finally gone: a useless, destructive tax which damaged jobs, which hurt families' cost of living and which didn't actually help the environment," Abbott told reporters in Canberra.

Australia is one of the world's worst greenhouse gas emitters per capita, largely because of its heavy reliance on the nation's vast reserves of cheap coal for electricity.

Opposition leader Bill Shorten lashed out at Abbott after the vote, dubbing him an "environmental vandal."

"Today, Tony Abbott has made Australia the first country in the world to reverse action on climate change," Shorten told reporters. "History will judge Tony Abbott very harshly for refusing to believe in genuine action on climate change. Tony Abbott is sleepwalking Australia to an environmental and economic disaster."

The carbon tax, charged to about 350 of Australia's biggest carbon polluters, was controversial from the start. Former Prime Minister Julia Gillard had initially vowed not to introduce a tax on carbon emissions. But after her Labor party was elected in 2010, she needed the support of the minor Greens party to form a government — and the Greens wanted a carbon tax. Gillard agreed, infuriating a public that viewed the measure's imposition as a broken promise.

Labor's popularity plummeted, particularly when consumers saw their power bills soar. In reality, the tax accounted for a relatively small portion of that increase, but many blamed it for the hike nonetheless.

Desperate to improve its standing with the public, Labor replaced Gillard with previous Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who promised to get rid of the tax and transition it earlier than planned to a cap-and-trade scheme, which would have significantly lowered the per-ton carbon price.

But it proved too little, too late. Abbott's party swept to power in last year's elections by vowing to get rid of the tax for good.

The prime minister said families will be AU$550 a year better off now that the tax is gone.

Big businesses and industry groups across Australia rallied behind the tax's abolition, including the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which dubbed the levy a dead weight on the economy.

"It really did impact on the competitiveness of many Australian businesses and of course it put up the price of power," the group's CEO Kate Carnell said. "So it's a good step forward for competitiveness and also for employment in Australia."

In a fiery speech ahead of Thursday's vote, Sen. Christine Milne, leader of the Greens, called it an "appalling day for Australia."

"A vote for the abolition of the clean energy package is a vote for failure," she said. "If this parliament votes to abandon the clean energy package, you are voting against the best interests of the nation."

Environmental groups called the tax's repeal an international embarrassment.

"It's a very sad day because it was working, this carbon price," said Australian Conservation Foundation CEO Kelly O'Shanassy. "Our government has failed Australians and they need to go and look their kids and their grandkids in the eye and tell them why — why — they are unwinding laws that will protect people in this country from climate change."
http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=AP&date=20140717&id=17782348&ocid=ansmony11

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Meh, we're on year 18 of statistically insignificant global temp change

Everyone note that now Darrin says its not warming. Sophist piece of shit that he is.

[boutons_deux]

"the tax accounted for a relatively small portion of that increase, but many blamed it for the hike nonetheless."

BigCarbon suckers and shills, conservatives everywhere, got NOTHING but propaganda and LIES (and $$$ from BigCarbon).

[DarrinS]

Everyone note that now Darrin says its not warming. Sophist piece of shit that he is.

Maybe you should write a strongly-worded letter to every climate scientist that acknowledges "the pause".


You can start by writing to sophist piece of shit, IPCC.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Maybe you should write a strongly-worded letter to every climate scientist that acknowledges "the pause".


You can start by writing to sophist piece of shit, IPCC.

I am pointing out your cognitive dissonance. If you cannot see it then that is kind of the point too. Expected and all.

There is a difference between what climate scientists do when commenting on this subject and what you are doing here. Just a little one.

[boutons_deux]

California Sets Sizzling Record for 2014 So Far

http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/cache/file/335207D9-F23C-4F56-BE84D5621500FA1A_article.jpg?0FDBC

California just finished the hottest first half year on record, a period going back 120 years, according to the national climate overview for June (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2014/6) released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The statewide average temperature for the period was 58°F, or 4.8°F above the 20th century average. That bests the previous warmest January-June in 1934 by 1.1°F — a substantial difference, said Jake Crouch, a climate scientist with NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.

The record exemplifies a temperature pattern that has held across the country for much of the year, with above-average temperatures in the West (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/hot-west-cold-east-may-be-norm-as-world-warms-17319) and below average in the East. The pattern has kept monthly average temperatures for the entire U.S.—as well as the average temperature for the year-to-date—in the middle of the pack record-wise, but has contributed to the stunning drought that has propagated across California (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/californias-drought-just-got-a-little-worse-17586).

And though temperatures across the U.S. as a whole haven’t set any records this year, the global average has been a different story. The year through May was the fifth warmest on record (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2014/5), according to NOAA data, which ranked May as the warmest on record, as did NASA and the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA). Preliminary NASA data suggests that June 2014 will come in as the third warmest June on record, while the JMA ranks it as the warmest in their temperature records (http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/highlights/mhcs201406.pdf). (Different agencies process temperature data using slightly different methods, but the differences between rankings are very small.)

NOAA expects its global data for June, which will be released on July 21, to be “in the same ballpark” as the NASA and JMA rankings, Jessica Blunden, a climate scientist with ERT, Inc., and a NOAA contractor who helps write the monthly reports, said in an email.

With an El Niño expected to develop (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/still-no-el-nino-long-wait-continues-17752) late this summer or in the fall, there is a chance that 2014 could move into the spot as the warmest year on record (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/el-nino-2014-warmest-may-year-17625), though the climate phenomenon’s effects are generally most pronounced in the colder months, so the boost it gives to global temperatures could be reserved for 2015.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/california-sets-sizzling-record-for-2014-so-far/

[boutons_deux]

Faux Pause 3: More Evidence Global Surface Temperatures Poised To Rise Rapidly (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/22/3462647/global-surface-temperatures/)


http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/gistemp_nino_s-638x218.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Cowtan-638x471.jpg
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/WhereGWisgoing1.jpg

Lead author Prof. Matthew England explained in a news release (http://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science/pacific-trade-winds-stall-global-surface-warming-now):


“Scientists have long suspected that extra ocean heat uptake has slowed the rise of global average temperatures, but the mechanism behind the hiatus remained unclear…. But the heat uptake is by no means permanent: when the trade wind strength returns to normal –- as it inevitably will –- our research suggests heat will quickly accumulate in the atmosphere. So global temperatures look set to rise rapidly out of the hiatus, returning to the levels projected within as little as a decade.”


What that study found (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2106.html) is that temperatures are likely to jump in the coming years since “the net effect of these anomalous winds is a cooling in the 2012 global average surface air temperature of 0.1–0.2°C.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/22/3462647/global-surface-temperatures/

[DarrinS]

Lol, TP