Reply With Quote
It's as much worthy of mention as the 4th coldest month, I suppose.
Hottest March on record!!!
for portions of Oklahoma and Arkansas
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/tsa/?n=climo_2012march_warmest
It's as much worthy of mention as the 4th coldest month, I suppose.
So you admit it is worthy of mention in the media.
OK. I'm glad you made that clear.
Thanks.
You might want to read that whole article.Hottest March on record!!!
for portions of Oklahoma and Arkansas
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/tsa/?n=climo_2012march_warmest
Also, what is your specific problem with the Tulsa office of NOAA reporting about the weather in the Tulsa area?
Please explain.
Good. Then we both agree there's nothing wrong with "Great Lakes ice cover developing; Earliest in over 40 years" as a newsworthy item.
I never said it wasn't. Wouldn't even try. That would be stupid.
Why did you try to claim the other wasn't newsworthy?
I didn't say it wasn't newsworthy. I said it was unremarkable.
Well, how many months total have been recorded?
More than 1000?
And all during an interglacial, thankfully.
So its the fourth highest out of over 1000?
Am I getting this right?
Damn. This is important to you.
I just want to be sure I'm being accurate.Damn. This is important to you.
Good catch. I started to respond to Chump about global warming before I realized what he was doing.
Well pardon the interruption, carry on debating the weather folks. I only enjoyed doing it when I knew a Manny meltdown was just around the corner.
"winter still happens, global warming must be a lie"
-re s
Too bad the past records have been altered.Damn. This is important to you.
I'm sorry, not altered... Corrected!
People have been playing the "it's only this winter" card for the past decade
Not really what is being said but, if that's the limit of your intellect, so be it.
How 'bout answering this one...
Observed temperatures do not agree with IPCC models that said it would be getting warmer by now.
It's like there's a cycle or something...
It's like you think they do not consider natural variation. This is stupid we went over years ago and I know has been explained to you. You have any new material or just going to live in 2005?It's like there's a cycle or something...
Well, it's obvious to me they downplay natural variations so they can suggest higher man made variations.
We don't need new material, you still haven't explained why the IPCC's settled science was so wrong.
We were told it was going to get hotter -- they were wrong. They failed to predict the "hiatus" in heating -- while the ing "hiatus" in heating was occurring. Why should we buy anything they, or any other climate alarmist, has said about climate when nothing they've predicted has happened? Polar bears are growing in population -- not dying off on small ice floes. There's more polar ice than ever before -- when we were told the North Pole would be melted by about this time.
We don't need new material, you need to explain why you're wrong and why anyone should trust anything you or the IPCC says about climate.
What's obvious to me is they've seized on a mechanism by which it was thought the American people could be bamboozled out of vast amounts of wealth to be redistributed through the United Nations. Now that they've been busted in lie after lie, they're floundering around looking for some way to hold on to their drea..er scheme.
I think the religion of Global Climate Change is just about out of steam...I hope.
It should be almost over.
Past temperature records can only be edited corrected so many times before people will notice. The sun has quieted this last solar cycle, and is predicted to quiet more.
The remainder of this decade will like be the death of climate alarmism dogma.
This is literally the same Manny told you before.
And dip doesn't know what normalization is.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
