U.S. summer a global warming preview, scientists say

[coldstream]

Any evidence to support your claim? .... and you oughtta know about convoluted "logic". Any evidence to support your claim? How would you know?I bet most of science is meaningless to you. Prove it. Yeah, as opposed to the angels and saints that have their own version of such frauds and lack of "conscienables"?



A half hour later and no such support or evidence seems to be forthcoming. I'm shocked.

I'm afraid these measurements are completely fraudulent LH.. there is NO global warming.. merely normal cycles of climate that have existed in the Northern Hemisphere since the end of a 'little ice age' in Europe between 1350 and 1850 (and we have no idea what caused that, except variations in solar radiation are most likely).

AND.. i've stated before before that the burden of proof of AGW is on its proponents not its sceptics.. since it is they that want to impose a disastrous, post industrial tyranny with a massive reduction in the earth's capacity to support its human population.

Have no doubt that the mystical pagan 'illuminati' that invented and promoted this diabolical lie.. don't care about the environment or earth.. they hate exclusively its human element. They divine a utopian ecological fantasy.. free of the its parasitic human interlopers.

Rest assured that they are quite mad.. and quite malevolent. The surest way to ensure a collapse of the biosphere is to remove humans from the equation.

 

[petros]

January 25, 2010

And?

Really? Do you live by a river that comes out of glacial melt in the mountains? I just ask beause in western North America most such farms use irrigation. Perhaps you are lucky, so far, in being able to rely on precipitation. As shown in the USGS study I mentioned a couplr of posts back those rain and snow patterns are changing. It would probably be a good idea to try and get some water rights for your stream.

Were do you people come up with this crap?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

.. there is NO global warming..

BBC NEWS | Special Reports | 629 | 629 | Climate scepticism: The top 10


The Illuminati?! You can't be serious. Can you?

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

And next year and the year after are predicted to be even hotter globally, don't be surprised if we see an ice free Arctic by the end of the decade.

 

[lone wolf]

I heard ice-free was predicted for the turn of the century (2000)

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

I heard ice-free was predicted for the turn of the century (2000)

Where?

The best estimates I've seen were for 2020 or after. In 2007 when the extent of sea ice reached it's lowest measurement in history that was reconsidered.

It's very difficult to predict local effects with a global climate shift, influences like ENSO, PDO, NAO(all oscillations of warm and cold water masses in the occean in connection with atmospheric pressure zones) and the Jet Streams can rapidly shift local condtions. So you can get local cooling while the whole system get warmer.

If the right conditions appear, like a strong ENSO with a solar thermal maximum(coming up in the next few years probably), the warming in the Arctic can accelerate rapidly.

I'm not saying it will happen, there's too many variables to consider, I'm saying it's not going to surprise me.

 

[lone wolf]

How in Hell would I remember where? That was from before 2000 in previous doom and gloom prophecy.

Is it any wonder this cause you've adopted is dismissed with Nostrildames?

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

How in Hell would I remember where? That was from before 2000 in more doom and gloom prophecy

The National Enquirer and peer-reviewed science aren't on the same level, hard science isn't prophecy, it's firmly rooted in some very well established principles...like the kind behind the technology we're using right now to communicate.

 

[petros]

How many tax dollars will it take to repair the giant hole (South Atlantic Anomaly) in the earth's magnetic field (that has diminished by 10% over the past 20 years) allowing raw solar radiation to enter earth's atmosphere altering it's chemical composition?

 

[lone wolf]

The National Enquirer and peer-reviewed science aren't on the same level, hard science isn't prophecy, it's firmly rooted in some very well established principles...like the kind behind the technology we're using right now to communicate.

So you naturally assume it was National Enquirer - then cry the trollish blues when someone pooh-poohs your "facts". For the record, I think your peer-reviewed version of National Enquirer is a tad overblown too

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

How many tax dollars will it take to repair the giant hole (South Atlantic Anomaly) in the earth's magnetic field (that has diminished by 10% over the past 20 years) allowing raw solar radiation to enter earth's atmosphere altering it's chemical composition?

You're confusing Ozone depletion with the declining of Earth's maganetic field. We can't patch the field, it's eventually going to disappear and probably reappear with the poles reversed. Ozone depletion will repair itself over time if given a chance, the Montreal Protocol has already addressed many of the human causes of that one.

 

[petros]

The National Enquirer and peer-reviewed science aren't on the same level, hard science isn't prophecy, it's firmly rooted in some very well established principles...like the kind behind the technology we're using right now to communicate.

No prophecy? So Why are we relying on prophetic digital assumptions?

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

So you naturally assume it was National Enquirer - then cry the trollish blues when someone pooh-poohs your "facts". For the record, I think your peer-reviewed version of National Enquirer is a tad overblown too

No, I'm just saying that presenting the extensive scientific evidence regarding climate change as doom and gloom prophecy places it at the level of the National Enquirer, where it doesn't belong.

If you don't recall where you read your limited amount of understanding on climate change then how can you claim to have any objective opinion on the matter. Believe what you want, but faith based science really is an oxymoron. Spend some time learning about the issue then comes back with criticisms based on that.

Try the IPCC 2007 Report for starters.

No prophecy? So Why are we relying on prophetic digital assumptions?

Are you refering to models?

We're not relying on models to confirm climate change, there's more than enough real world data on that.

What models can do is give a rough estimate of possible changes, often the results are conservative when compared with real world changes as with sea ice retreat.

 

[petros]

Try the IPCC 2007 Report for starters.

The same report that bull****ted about the Himilayan crisis that came came from a magazine article as posted above?

No, I'm just saying that presenting the extensive scientific evidence regarding climate change as doom and gloom prophecy places it at the level of the National Enquirer, where it doesn't belong.

If you don't recall where you read your limited amount of understanding on climate change then how can you claim to have any objective opinion on the matter. Believe what you want, but faith based science really is an oxymoron. Spend some time learning about the issue then comes back with criticisms based on that.

Try the IPCC 2007 Report for starters.



Are you refering to models?

We're not relying on models to confirm climate change, there's more than enough real world data on that.

What models can do is give a rough estimate of possible changes, often the results are conservative when compared with real world changes as with sea ice retreat.

How is sea ice a threat? If I have a glass ful of ice cubes and water will the water spill over when the ice melts?

 

[Niflmir]

Europe is having a cool wet summer.. after one of the most frigid winters in decades. It goes to show you how selective the 'evidence' for AGW is.

No we aren't. England is but that is argued by some to not even be a part of Europe. But hey, apparently you wanted to hop on the selective bandwagon.

Anyways, the frequency of warm weather phenomena may increase as global warming occurs, but as wariness of the quotes by the scientists show, any individual event cannot be linked to global warming. It is funny to see the media which are so delighted to gloat in cold weather trying to pull out the statistical non-certainty now though.

 

[petros]

Would we be experiencing a heat wave if the Pacific surface temps were back to normal instead of being too cool to build enough energy for moisture to make it over the Sierras and Nor Am Cordillera?

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

The same report that bull****ted about the Himilayan crisis that came came from a magazine article as posted above?


How is sea ice a threat? If I have a glass ful of ice cubes and water will the glass spill over when the ice melts?

It's not bull****, it's science and it's not always correct, but it's far more reliable than any other system of intrepretation of facts. Does it make sense to let politicians and lobbyists determine the "facts" on such an issue. Would you fly in a plane designed by them or allow them to carry out a complex medical procedure? The IPCC Report is a huge and well researched document on the state of the global environement, it's not all correct, but it's far better than random guesses.

Sea ice isn't a threat, it's an indicator of climate shifts. The sea ice in the Arctic has significantly thinned and retreated in the last 30 years. When it's gone instead of a surface that reflects 90% of the incoming solar radiation, there will be a surface that absorbs 90%, local warming will increase as sea ice declines in extent.

 

[petros]

It's not bull****, it's science and it's not always correct, but it's far more reliable than any other system of intrepretation of facts. .

They didn't knowingly bull****? What part of hard science does bull**** fall under? Guess what? How does sea ice rflect sunlight when iit's in the 100 % dark for 4 months of ther year?

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

Would we be experiencing a heat wave if the Pacific surface temps were back to normal instead of being too cool to build enough energy for moisture to make it over the Sierras and Nor Am Cordillera?

What do you mean by normal?

The last few years have seen recurring La Nina conditions which favor a cooler North America, there's a predicted El Nino coming in response, all the warm surface water that has been pooled in the western Pacific is going to come sloshing back and we should experience some extreme hot weather in North America as a result. Along with other things.

One thing you can say with climate change is the unpredictable become much more common, there is no normal anymore and won't be until the global climate reaches equilibrium. And the longer we put off reducing greenhouse gas emmissions the longer that will take and the more severe the effects.

 

[lone wolf]

No, I'm just saying that presenting the extensive scientific evidence regarding climate change as doom and gloom prophecy places it at the level of the National Enquirer, where it doesn't belong.

If you don't recall where you read your limited amount of understanding on climate change then how can you claim to have any objective opinion on the matter. Believe what you want, but faith based science really is an oxymoron. Spend some time learning about the issue then comes back with criticisms based on that.

Try the IPCC 2007 Report for starters.

Can you tell me the first place you read In Flanders Fields?

In many overflights of the Arctic, I saw (and reported because it was part of the job) ice, no ice, more ice, less ice many times over. Perhaps if you'd spend a little less time predicting the end of the world and a little more getting ready for what HAS to come (natural cycles and all) you wouldn't be in this position of ridicule in which you find yourself mired now.

Ever heard of the SS Manhattan - 1969?