Warm May 2012 not evidence of global warming, says UAH climatologist

Written by Mike Kelley, Alabama Live.

earth-with-satelliteRecent climate data show that May 2012 was one of the warmest on record, with both global and northern hemisphere temperatures about one degree Fahrenheit above normal.

But UAHuntsville and state climatologist Dr. John Christy cautions this does not necessarily mean northern hemisphere landmasses will become overheated deserts anytime soon. The noted atmospheric scientist says data collected over the past 130 years, as well as satellite data, show a pattern not quite consistent with popular views on global warming.

Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, says May 2012 was the fourth warmest in the 34-year history of satellite data gathering. Data show May temperatures in the northern hemisphere to be a little more than a degree Fahrenheit above average.

The data show it was 0.95 C, or about 1.71 degrees Fahrenheit, warmer than normal over the contiguous 48 states, which made it the fourth warmest May since 1979, according to Christy.

He and fellow UAHuntsville climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer use data gathered by advanced microwave sounding units on NOAA and NASA satellites to get accurate temperature readings for almost all regions of the Earth.

The satellite measures temperatures in the layer of atmosphere from sea level up to about 35,000 feet, which Christy says includes three-fourths of the total Earth atmosphere. These measurements, he says, are much more accurate than relying solely on ground measurements.

"We're measuring the mass, the deep layer of the atmosphere. You can think of this layer as a reservoir of heat. It gives you a better indication than just surface measurements, which can be influenced by so many factors, such as wind and currents, and things like urbanization."

Christy adds that using the same thermometer, on the same spacecraft, adds to measurement accuracy. "It's using the same thermometer to measure the world," he says.

Based on these observations, Christy says the accepted view of global warming is not quite as accurate as popularly believed. He acknowledges that some global warming is occurring, but says it is not pronounced as many climatologists claim.

Read rest…

Comments  

 
Gator
# Gator 06-05-2012 19:43
I see the Soros employees are busy in the source comment section. I would have replied but could not log in. Hmmmmmm.

Oh well, good to see John is still performing real scientific studies, history will treat him kindly.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Paul Homewood
# Paul Homewood 06-06-2012 05:30
So far this year UAH averages 0.10C above the the long term average.

Let's all panic.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-06-2012 05:57
Paraphrasing RealClimate (where one can find actual information): "In their solo careers, Spencer and Christy are still pros at bad analysis. They were wrong — dead wrong — for a very long time, which created one of the most enduring denier myths, that the satellite data didn’t show the global warming that the surface temperature data did.

We now know, of course, that the satellite data set confirms that the climate is warming , and indeed at very nearly the same rate as indicated by the surface temperature records. Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done.
Amazingly (or not), the “serial errors in the data analysis” all pushed the (mis)analysis in the same, wrong direction. Coincidence? You decide. But I find it hilarious that the deniers and delayers still quote Christy/Spencer/UAH analysis lovingly, but to this day dismiss the “hockey stick” and anything Michael Mann writes, when his analysis was in fact vindicated by the august National Academy of Sciences and replicated by many others using independent data and methodiology.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Robert
# Robert 06-06-2012 06:50
Well look who shows up. With more bullshit from the faithful no less.

If these people at RealClimate had any integrity and were to be taken seriously they would not be using the word "deniers" in their statement. If their "science" had any credibility they would not need it.

Not that we expect you to be able to grasp that.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-06-2012 07:02
Bullshit? May was one of the was one of the warmest Mays on record -- according to "Mr Dead Wrong" himself. In fact it was the 327th straight month (Holy Moly!) where the average monthly temperature was higher than the corresponding months' 20th century average. What are the odds of THAT? If this were a roulette wheel, black has come up for almost 28 straight years.

Denier fits. So does delusional.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 06-08-2012 23:23
Ma was the one of the warmest on record..Bla Bla Blah... Then this happened! Quote:
Recently unearthed photographs taken by Danish explorers in the 1930s show glaciers in Greenland retreating faster than they are today, according to researchers. The photos in question were taken by the seventh Thule Expedition to Greenland led by Dr Knud Rasmussen in 1932. The explorers were equipped with a seaplane, which they used to take aerial snaps of glaciers along the Arctic island’s coasts.
www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/10224-global-warming-hysteria-greenland-melted-in-1930s
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-06-2012 07:58
Let's see... hmmmm... the peddlers of warmist alarmism disagree with those that say the sky is not falling. The alarmists call the scientists names, and point at research mistakes as proof that alarmism is correct. Have we seen the alarmists admit mistakes? Or fraud? (Hey Peter G! ;-) )

Hmmmmmm. Where else do we find infallibility? Religion! Yes!

And where do we find mistakes? Peer review! Hmmmm. That sounds sciency...

Oh, I get it! We are comparing apples to oranges, science to religion.

And isn't that the same Michael Mann who has been taken to court, because he refuses to show his work?

Work that is supposed to save the planet?

Right?

The same MM who tried to erase the MWP?

Yeah, keep quoting him, and throw in some Gleick for added credibility. Mr Ethics! :D

Oh dear! And here I was hoping someone had finally disproven natural variability! :D :D :D
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-06-2012 11:23
If you want to know absolutely anything just ask Gator and then believe the opposite.

The MBH [Mann-Bradley-Hughes] data have been publicly available for more than a decade now -- here are some links:
www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/#Paleo_data
www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/research/MANNETAL98/

Researchers need not have access to exactly the same computer programs (or “code”) as Dr. Mann developed. Dr. Mann's results can be replicated using his underlying data and methodologies.

"My research is all based on data sets regarding the Earth’s climate that are freely and widely available to all researchers. Whether I make available my computer programs is irrelevant to whether our results can be reproduced..."

"My computer program is a piece of private, intellectual property, as the National Science Foundation and its lawyers recognize. It is a bedrock principle of American law that the government may not take private property “without [a] public use,” and “without just compensation.”"---Dr. Michael Mann's letter to Congressman Joe Barton (7-15-05)

I FORGET, IS IT 1O OR 12 HOCKEY STICKS THAT NOW HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED BY THE VARIOUS INTERNATIONAL AND INDEPENDENT TEAMS OF RESEARCHERS SINCE MANN'S ORIGINAL?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-06-2012 11:46
More obfuscations from the alarmist camp. If Mann is refusing to save the world due to his own greed and ambition, he is even more of a scumbag than I previously thought.

I'm sure Maddoff had an excuse as well...

Still all looking perfectly natural, cycles you know... ;-)
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-06-2012 12:26
"More obfuscations from the alarmist camp. If Mann is refusing to save the world due to his own greed and ambition, he is even more of a scumbag than I previously thought."

WTF?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-06-2012 12:41
As usual Cool Whip is clueless. :D :D :D
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-06-2012 13:05
Clueless as how you can post such delusional rantings and still operate a keyboard. A weird form of autism -- you know like the guy who can tell you whether June 23rd or November 11th in any year falls on a Tuesday or Friday but is unable to dress himself.

I post to you evidence that Mann's data has been freely available for a decade and that multiple teams of independent researchers have replicated the Hockey Stick and you reply that he is hiding something.

You are a strange reptile, Gator. Very strange.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-06-2012 13:28
Quote:
"I post to you evidence that Mann's data has been freely available for a decade and that multiple teams of independent researchers have replicated the Hockey Stick..."
No, you linked to an alarmist website, whose owner is completely dependent upon alarmist funding...

The current permanent contributors to content on this site are:

* Gavin Schmidt
* Michael Mann
* Caspar Ammann
* Rasmus Benestad
* Ray Bradley
* Stefan Rahmstorf
* Eric Steig
* David Archer
* Ray Pierrehumbert
* Thibault de Garidel
* Jim Bouldin


Try getting info from someone whose entire livelihood is not dependent on Mann's hockey stick being correct. ;-)

Found that paper refuting natural variability yet, or still crying about the sky falling? :D :D :D
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-06-2012 13:51
Data is data and it has been freely available for more than a decade which completely refutes the standard denialist claim that Mann is hiding something.

How is it possible that we now have so many reconstruction of the hockey stick if it was all based on subterfuge? Your position regarding Mann is a textbook example of delusion.

The only thing you should be skeptical about are sCeptics.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-06-2012 14:00
Yes Cool Whip, data is data. And data fraud is not data, it is fraud.

Mann tried to erase the MWP and got caught with his fat little hand in the cookie jar. All of his co-conspirators, and fellow rent seekers have defended him.

Huge surprise. :-*

The real data shows what we are experiencing is absolutely natural, nothing unusual or unprecedented.

Completely boring... :zzz

Now, please provided even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent or any global climate changes, or quit whining. :D
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-06-2012 20:39
Oh, that's right -- the worldwide hoax thingo and the "fraudulent" data thingo.

WWSFS? (What Would Sigmund Freud Say)? "Dis ist a classic exzompol of sCeptic Delusion due to Mutter UND Vater issues."
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-07-2012 06:05
Oh! Good news Cool Whip! Your NV denialist friends have just reinstated another crook!

Woohoo! Talk about credibility! Peter Gleick is back! That's right, forget about his lies, his ID theft and other related crimes, he is one of the NV denialists and can do NO wrong!!! :D :D :D

Wow! What razor sharp credibility you guys have while you erase climate epochs, steal and forge documents, refuse FOI requests, alter historical climate data, fudge sea level data, lie about islands sinking, lie about polar bear populations, lie about sea ice, etc...

That's some authority all right! Back in the USSR!!! :D :D :D

PS - Why can't you disprove natural variability? ;-)
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 06-09-2012 15:55
Quote:
How is it possible that we now have so many reconstruction of the hockey stick if it was all based on subterfuge?
How can we have empirical evidence like this if it wasn't? video.ca.msn.com/watch/video/melting-ice-reveals-1-000-year-old-artifacts/17yir6jps?cpkey=9cd0146b-0d86-4dc4-bd7f-5d55cb23ea1a%7c%7c%7c%7c wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/26/on-the-vikings-and-greenland/ www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 06-14-2012 20:00
1900 Paper say your 12 hokey sticks are rubbish. www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBQeqKQHlZc&feature=player_embedded#! www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1k4mFZr-gE&feature=related

Hockey Stick? What Hockey Stick? I Don't see no Hockey Stick! www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfafW_3oJ3Q&feature=relmfu
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-06-2012 11:29
Oh, BTW, did you guys notice that last Saturday Germany produced half of its entire electricity through solar PV? amazing. Clearly, renewable energy is the future.

In 10 years, the world will wonder why we didn't we do it sooner?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-06-2012 11:47
What does that have to do with alarmist claims of AGW?

Found that paper that refutes natural variability yet Cool Whip? :D :D :D
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 06-11-2012 22:41
Quote:
Oh, BTW, did you guys notice that last Saturday Germany produced half of its entire electricity through solar PV? amazing. Clearly, renewable energy is the future.
Then the sun went down...
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Werner Brozek
# Werner Brozek 06-06-2012 13:52
On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is flat for all practical purposes range from 10 years and 8 months to 15 years and 6 months. Following is the longest period of time (above 10 years) where each of the data sets is more or less flat. (For any positive slope, the exponent is no larger than 10^-5, except UAH which was 0.00103655 per year or 0.10/century, so while it is not significant, it could be questioned whether it can be considered to be flat.)

1. RSS: since November 1996 or 15 years, 6 months (goes to April)
2. HadCrut3: since January 1997 or 15 years, 3 months (goes to March)
3. GISS: since March 2001 or 11 years, 2 months (goes to April)
4. UAH: since October 2001 or 10 years, 8 months (goes to May)
5. Combination of the above 4: since October 2000 or 11 years, 6 months (goes to March)
6. Sea surface temperatures: since January 1997 or 15 years, 4 months (goes to April)

See the graph below to show it all for #1 to #6.

www.woodfortrees.org/.../trend
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Werner Brozek
# Werner Brozek 06-06-2012 14:03
2012 in perspective so far

With the UAH anomaly for May at 0.289, the average for the first five months of the year is 0.10. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 12th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.153 to rank it 9th for that year. (1998 was the warmest at 0.428.)

With the GISS anomaly for April at 0.56, the average for the first third of the year is 0.44. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 13th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.514 to rank it 9th for that year. (2010 was the warmest at 0.63.)

With the Hadcrut3 anomaly for April at 0.482, the average for the first four months of the year is 0.30. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 14th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.34 to rank it 12th for that year. (1998 was the warmest at 0.548.)

With the sea surface anomaly for April at 0.292, the average for the first four months of the year is 0.24. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 14th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.273 to rank it 12th for that year. (1998 was the warmest at 0.451.)

So on all four of the above data sets, for their latest anomaly average, the 2012 average is colder than their 2011 average value.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-06-2012 20:44
So tell me Werner how does 2012 stack up so far -- in any data set -- compared to years BEFORE 1982?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Robert
# Robert 06-06-2012 18:09
As was covered in a recent article, and as he demonstrates every time he shows up here, drewski proves the study that shows the more scientifically illiterate one is the more they believe in global warming/climate change/whatever they are calling it this month.

We love your proof drewski, unfortunately you just don't get it that the only thing you prove is what a dunce you are. But continue as you are, the only one you make look bad is yourself.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-06-2012 21:33
Well Robert, I am in good company. For example: The NSA, the CIA, the Pentagon, the US Navy, the Vatican, the British Conservative Party, the Australian Labor Party, the European Union, Exxon, BP, Shell, the American Petroleum Institute, the World Meteorlogical Society, hundreds of international university earth science departments, 868 university presidents, 97% of the PUBLISHING climate scientists and all (as in every single one) of the world's science academies.

And on your side Robert, you have a litany of sCeptics who don't have a single scientific degree to share between them (Caruba, Watts, Sullivan, Monckton, Morano, etc, etc.); or for the few who do have a degree, they are guilty of peddling false information for ten years (Christy -- hey Gator, looks like I have found your "fraudulent" data for you), or they are Creationists who believe the world is 6,000 years old (Spencer, Michael); or they lie about their qualifications (Ball); or they lie about their real name AND qualifications (Goddard); or they are in the pay of right-wing think tanks (Clark, Singer, etc.); or they are slimy reptiles (guess who).

You should be proud Robert. Very proud.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Robert
# Robert 06-07-2012 00:53
Appeals to authority is all you have, you have no real clue what the numbers mean, or who actually supports what.

You are a joke drewski, that's all you've ever been here and all you will ever be. But your identity and sense of self is so wrapped up in this you couldn't see reality if your life depended on it.

When you can't provide actual data that hasn't been massaged to get the answer you want you do what your kind always does, try and smear the opposition because your "evidence" can't compete with their reality.

Remember Gleick, who had to lie, steal, and commit fraud to accomplish his goals. That's your team drewski, better take the blinders off.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-07-2012 01:29
Appeals to authority. . .. well, you got to admit, they do represent the HIGHEST authority in the scientific world. And, hey, I am comfortable with that.

And, truth be told, I do admit to enjoying the odd "smear" now and then when it comes to the incompetent, the illogical, and the unqualified (think Climate Disbadshit).

Well, its been fun (again). And remember, sCeptic reality is only as far as your closest pharmacy.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Robert
# Robert 06-07-2012 13:59
Yes, just as the "highest authority" at one time claimed the earth was the center of the universe and all, as in every single one, of the academies of the period agreed with them. Which is why Galileo was imprisoned.

No drewski, we don't consider ourselves Galileos which is your only retort when we remind you of this, we are pointing out the similarities to what happened in his time and what your kind is trying to do in our time. The same behaviors, the same clinging to the dogma with the desire to shoot, hang, imprison, or otherwise deny the freedom of thought of anyone who disagrees with you.

We don't consider ourselves Galileos, but unlike you we see history repeating itself. A subtle difference that we fully expect to be lost on one of the faithful such as yourself.

Too bad for you our reality doesn't need drugs, it's as close as stepping out the front door. It also has the added benefit of disproving the models, contradicting your "evidence", and generally not co-operating with your beliefs.

Now can we expect you to be true to your word in that you plan to go away again until you think you've found something else with which to prove how clever you seem to think you are? Or are you another liar like Gleick and we'll have to deal with more of your drivel today?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-07-2012 14:13
Hey Robert! This just in...

Michael Mann Sides with Crook

“I'm very pleased to learn that Peter has been exonerated,” Michael Mann of Penn State told ME. “He's been a tireless champion for an informed discussion about how we deal with the challenges of climate change and diminishing access to clean water. I, for one, welcome him back to that discussion.”

There is no honor amongst thieves... ;-)
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-07-2012 21:18
And there are no qualifications amongst sCeptics.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Robert
# Robert 06-07-2012 22:35
Please state yours, not the one's you think you have, one's that actually qualify you for anything other than busboy.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 06-08-2012 00:34
And no predictive skill amoungst crybaby bedwetting alarmists. 140 models vs reality = Epic fail. Quote:
Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics said, “It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are(97%?), and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.”
www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/the-rest-of-the-cherries-140-decades-of-climate-models-vs-observations/
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-08-2012 07:32
Quoting Drewski:
And there are no qualifications amongst sCeptics.


Another provably false statement from Cool Whip.

And anyone who discounts the value of skeptics to the advancement of science is truly an idiot.

Childish prattle. :zzz
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-07-2012 21:17
What "academies" would that be Robert? What scientific methodologies did they use and what instruments?

Galileo used science to overcome biased ignorance -- kind of like what I am trying to do here.

Good one Robert.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Robert
# Robert 06-07-2012 22:34
As I said, the concept is beyond you. The "academies" would be those of the church with was the "authority" then, just as you try to claim the "authorities" today are correct.

You argue from ignorance and try and claim you use science. Try again, you and those who support the AGW/Climate Change/Whatever meme are as corrupt and biased as the church in Galileo's time.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-07-2012 23:41
Did you know Robert that Galileo is credited to being one of the pioneers of the modern scientific method? You know that process which has brought all our conveniences and discoveries? The thing that is the bedrock of modern science?

Choosing Galileo to rail against the authority of what is the embodiment of modern science -- national science academies -- isn't my idea of a persuasive argument.

But keep trying. Maybe your next thought bubble won't smell like a fart.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Robert
# Robert 06-08-2012 00:03
drewski that was your breath, but we understand your confusion.

You see, Galileo was a founder of and a proponent of what is THE scientific method in which observation and empirical evidence is used.

You are a babbler of the "modern" scientific method in which models replace empirical evidence, and predetermined outcomes replace observation.

Please don't confuse the two.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-08-2012 00:50
The "empirical evidence" shows 327 straight months of higher temperatures than the corresponding months'20th century average. It also shows that we have had 13 of the past 15 years as the highest temperature years in the historical record (whilst in the midst of the lowest solar minimum on record). Empirical evidence also shows that evening temperatures are rising even faster than daytime temps (do I have to explain the meaning of that to you? PS you can thank A. Watts for that info). And it also shows that the oceans are acidifying (i.e, higher CO2).

Empirical evidence also shows that Valium mixed with Bourban kills brain cells. Your doctor thinks you should pay more attention to "Empical Evidence".
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Robert
# Robert 06-08-2012 00:58
Sorry drewski, the empirical evidence does not show that.

The "corrected" evidence shows that, a "correction" which coincidentally always moves the data to be more in line with the desired outcome.

Unfortunately you do not understand that over the range of time you discuss for the corrections to ALWAYS be made in the direction supporting the hypothesis is extremely questionable.

Tired cliches, it's all you have, and even more humorous is the fact that it is all you are. A tired cliche.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-08-2012 04:00
Really?! Empirical evidence doesn't show rising night time temperatures and that the oceans are not acidifying?

So now thermometers and test tubes are part of this unbelievably big world-wide conspiracy? What about toasters and kettles -- are they part of it too?

I see you haven't listed to your doctor regarding empirical evidence.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-08-2012 07:36
Rising nighttime temps are a result of UHI, and oceans are alkaline. Geesh, what are they teaching in grade school these days! :D :D :D

Disproven natural variability lately? ;-)
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-08-2012 11:16
BEST data confirms the premise that the Urban Heat Island effect is not behind the warming registered by the majority of weather stations around the world. They also report that although the urban heat island effect is real, the US weather stations rated as "high quality" by NOAA showed the same warming trend as those rated as "low quality". berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-uhi.pdf

According to the National Climatic Data in Asheville, N.C., the past 96 years and saw the skyrocketing trend of hot summer nights in U.S. night minimum temperature records. On any given year about 10 percent of the country should have "much above normal" summer-night lows. From 2001 to 2005, on average nearly 30 percent of the nation had "much above normal" average summertime minimum temperatures -- a record - by far.

Over the last few decades, surface measurements have observed nights warming faster than days (Braganza 2004, Alexander 2006, Zhou 2009).

Gator, I did not say the oceans were acidic, I said they were acidifyING -- notice the "ing"? That little suffix turns nouns into verbs as in an action or is becoming. For example: Man-made CO2 is acidifying the oceans into a less alkaline solution. Understand now? An acidic ocean would be catastrophic -- don't you agree.

PS When does your term end as Chairman of C.O.W. (Council of Wrong)? I will second Adam as your successor -- I am sure he will do a great job.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-08-2012 11:37
Yes we are familiar with the WORST data. Nighttime temps elevating are a result of urban sprawl. Period.

Now, for oceans to acidify, they must first cease to be alkaline. Period.

There is no danger associated with elevated CO2 and ocean water. Study after study confirms the oceans are in no danger from the possible warming and associated change in alkalinity.

The sky is not falling. Grow up. Learn to think critically.

Disproven natural variability lately? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-08-2012 11:53
Period?! Rising night time temps are just an illusion PERIOD? BEST is worst? PERIOD!

Of course, an acid ocean can not also be alkaline -- whoever said different?

You are beginning to sound a little incoherent my friend -- even for you. Put down the bottle and come in out of the sun. When your hands have stopped shaking, call your sponsor and have them come over straight away. Get some rest for now and we will talk when you are feeling more lucid.

God knows when that will be.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-08-2012 12:01
So, no way to say that all this might not just be NV and land change use?

Good! We are in agreement then.

Buh-bye! ;-)
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 06-07-2012 23:58
Yep! The HIGHEST Authoriteh have a proven track record of 20 years of failed doomsday predictions.

The question you should ask is how is 2012 stacking up to alarmist predictions? Like Hansen? DOH!!!...
And the totally discredited 97%? Again? Really? Quote:
The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.
"Hands-up. Who thinks greenhouse gasses have no effect and therefore we all need new jobs? Anyone?"
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 06-07-2012 23:59
So... 77 out of 10,257 is 97%? :D
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-08-2012 00:35
Amirlach, I did say "publishing" climate scientists, did I not?

Here is the source reference to the survey you did a magnificent job of butchering. www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/ssi/DoranEOS09.pdf

Of the 3146 individuals (from 10,257) completing the survey, the participant response rate for the survey was 30.7%. Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists. In the survey, the MOST SPECIALIZED AND KNOWLEDGEABLE respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals
in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.

What were the questions?
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Next time Amirlach, when you try to sound impressive, go to the source first (saves embarrassment later).
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 06-08-2012 23:36
Yes we read the Climate Gate emails proving how they got "Published". :zzz

There's still the issue with all the above 97%ers failed predictions. Quote:
Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics said, “It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are(97%?), and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.”
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 06-08-2012 23:56
Quote:
Amirlach, I did say "publishing" climate scientists, did I not?
The question you should answer. How is 2012 stacking up to the alarmist 97%'s predictions? :D
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Robert
# Robert 06-07-2012 00:56
By the way drewski, if you think the CIA is "good company" you really are f'ed in the head.

But then we already knew that about you didn't we?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 06-08-2012 00:19
-Raj Pachauri, the railroad engineer who is chairman of the IPCC? "how many members of United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were actual climate scientists? It is well known that many, if not most, of its members are not scientists at all. Its president, for example, is an economist. This question came after Schlesinger had cited the IPCC as an authority for his position. His answer was quite telling.

First he broadened it to include not just climate scientists but also those who have had “some dealing with the climate.” His complete answer was that he thought, “something on the order of 20 percent have had some dealing with climate.” In other words, even IPCC worshiper Schlesinger now acknowledges that 80 percent of the IPCC membership had absolutely no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies.

This shatters so much of the alarmists’ claim, as they almost always appeal to the IPCC as their ultimate authority."

"http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/17/william-schlesinger-on-ipcc-something-on-the-order-of-20-percent-have-had-some-dealing-with-climate/
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Werner Brozek
# Werner Brozek 06-06-2012 22:43
"# Drewski 2012-06-06 19:44
So tell me Werner how does 2012 stack up so far -- in any data set -- compared to years BEFORE 1982?"

The way old data has often been adjusted, it is hard to tell exactly. See
wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/06/noaas-national-climatic-data-center-caught-cooling-the-past-modern-processed-records-dont-match-paper-records/

"However, if we look at the current NCDC temperature analysis (which runs from 1895-present) we see that for Arizona in February 1934 they have a state average of 48.9°F, not the 52.0°F that was originally published:"
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-06-2012 23:33
Adjusted -- as in corrected or falsified? Well why don't we go to the Denialist-In-Chief himself, Anthony Watts? He spent lots of his blogger donation money to show that "Adjusted" was actually fraudulent (remember his highly-touted Surface Station Study?) only to show that it wasn't.

I wonder why he never talks about that 4-year boondoggle of his any more?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Joker
# Joker 06-07-2012 07:29
Quoting Drewski:
Adjusted -- as in corrected or falsified? Well why don't we go to the Denialist-In-Chief himself, Anthony Watts? He spent lots of his blogger donation money to show that "Adjusted" was actually fraudulent (remember his highly-touted Surface Station Study?) only to show that it wasn't.

I wonder why he never talks about that 4-year boondoggle of his any more?


I could do with a cab next Tuesday Nite Drewski old boy, as well as New Years Eve, just thought I'd fore warn you, I'll make sure you get a good tip as well.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Werner Brozek
# Werner Brozek 06-07-2012 00:38
"# Drewski 2012-06-06 22:33"

Please see:
www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/4/2/muller-on-watts.html

Here is what Richard Muller (BEST) had to say about Anthony Watts: "If Watts hadn't done his work, we would not have reliable data today. The fact that he did that means he's a hero; he deserves some sort of international prize."
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-07-2012 02:31
Anthony Watts DID add to the scientific knowledge base and for that he should be commended.

And what was his contribution, Werner? Watts CONFIRMED that the historical climate record compiled by NASA, NOAH and HadCRU was rigorous and faithful.

And by doing that, he took away the major cornerstone that the entire denialist movement's house of cards was based on.

So lets celebrate Anthony Watts -- hero.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Werner Brozek
# Werner Brozek 06-07-2012 00:58
"# Drewski 2012-06-06 19:44
So tell me Werner how does 2012 stack up so far -- in any data set -- compared to years BEFORE 1982?"

Yes, it is warmer than in 1982, however we are coming out of the LIA and there is no evidence the warming in the most recent 30 year period is due to CO2. A similar warming rate occurred 70 years ago. The slopes for the two periods in question are virtually identical.
www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1900/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1912.33/to:1942.33/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1982.25/to:2013/trend

By the way, February of 2012 was beaten in July, August and September of 1944, but I admit the whole year of 1944 did not beat 2012.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Joker
# Joker 06-07-2012 03:41
Drewski's back eh

Must be time of the month!

Hee Hee
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-07-2012 05:49
Hey Joker! Yeah, the nuthouse must have had a field trip and missed one on the way back 'home'. :D

That boy can deny natural variability with the worst of them. I have asked for years for proof that this is not just another natural climate cycle, and even though he has never provided any proof, he is convinced it is not. That's some brain power!

Never mind that all of his 'authorities' have been wrong before, they are infallible now.

Faithful to a fault! :D :D :D
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Werner Brozek
# Werner Brozek 06-07-2012 10:19
"# Drewski 2012-06-07 01:31
Watts CONFIRMED that the historical climate record compiled by NASA, NOAH and HadCRU was rigorous and faithful."

Anthony Watts is exposing wrong adjustments all over the place.

For the Arctic, see
wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/11/another-giss-miss-warming-in-the-arctic-the-adjustments-are-key/
"There has been much discussion recently about temperature adjustments made by GHCN in Iceland and Greenland, which have had the effect of reducing historic temperature levels, thereby creating an artificial warming trend. These can easily be checked at the GISS website, where both the old and new datasets can be viewed as graph and table data, here and here."

"For Iceland, see
wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/25/another-giss-miss-this-time-in-iceland/
Now that GHCN have created a false warming trend in Iceland and Greenland , and GISS have amended every single temperature record on their database for Reykjavik going back to 1901 (except for 2010 and 2011), we should have a look at the overall effect."

For New Zealand, see
wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/16/new-zealands-niwa-sued-over-climate-data-adjustments/
"He said the New Zealand Meteorological Service had shown no warming during the past century but Niwa had adjusted its records to show a warming trend of 1degC. The warming figure was high and almost 50 percent above the global average, said Mr Leyland."
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
# Guest 06-08-2012 05:34
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-08-2012 07:59
Sorry Pete, I meant O'Sullivan -- really it should be Oh My God!Sullivan. The guy is a certified loon - a liar of the first order and that makes him especially beloved by the sCeptic community. BTW sCeptic stands for So Called Experts Perpetually Talking In Circles -- just so you know.

O'Sullivan is a real piece of work isn't he? A graduate student in psychology could make him the subject of their thesis. They could title it "How To Succeed With sCeptics Without Really Trying".

sCeptics love their loons and they love you more if you have no actual scientific qualifications. For some strange reason EARNING a degree has less credibility amongst sCeptics than LYING about having one.

If you want to have more fun, look up the "credentials" of Lord (cough cough) Monckton and Tim Ball.

Joke (but not really): Two sCeptics were watching the news about floods in South America and when the news reader mentioned that 3 Brazilians died, the 1st sCeptic turned to the other and said "How many is a brazillion?"
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
# Guest 06-14-2012 12:26
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
Russ
# Russ 06-16-2012 20:58
;-) !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
anne
# anne 06-09-2012 03:17
www.google.co.uk/.../ In the meantime I will be carefully following the C/Fact Team, one of whom is Lord Monkton.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
anne
# anne 06-09-2012 03:27
toryaardvark.com/2012/06/08/warming-alarmist-failed-prediction-arctic-sea-ice/ More and more failed predictions, do click onto the Cryosphere it is a wonderful site.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
anne
# anne 06-09-2012 03:36
toryaardvark.com/2012/06/07/the-world-will-end-again-in-2025/ This one is specially for Drewski, just because I know he will love it.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-09-2012 09:46
Hey anne! Love it!

"There is no doubt that environmentalists hate people, just recently Paul Ehrlich stated that 80% of then worlds population needed to be got rid of, Ehrlich is just the tip of the kill the humans iceberg in the Green movement."

They out themselves every time, by not leading by example. If they truly believed what they say, and were honestly trying to save the planet for future whatevers, they would go first. We can always hope...
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 06-10-2012 21:17
Ehrlich is a prime example of the. "If your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.”

His predictions were complete and utter nonsense yet he refuses to accept reality and move forward. He just keeps going along with the same provably false claims.

Who but true belivers in the "Cause" or the woefully uninformed would listen to this crackpot?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 06-09-2012 16:06
Droolski can't get past the first simple truth of the scientific method. Quote:
"If your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.”
The vast amount model driven drivel "published" by the "Consensus" will eventually alter reality once it reaches a mass equal to the the earths... Or something cause reality is formed by a majority committee vote.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-10-2012 12:21
Anne, you do understand the difference between ice extent and ice volume don't you?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
# Guest 06-10-2012 15:38
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
Russ
# Russ 06-10-2012 18:34
So what area of expertise is it you know abour K :o lwhip that we don't?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
# Guest 06-10-2012 18:41
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
Russ
# Russ 06-10-2012 18:48
I'm a denier as you would like to call it, but you sound like a true believer of the faith? Is it that easy for you?
If not what is yours? :D
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Russ
# Russ 06-10-2012 19:04
And please in the future don't greet me with "Hi", because you people don't really mean it. You people really have disdian for us people that don't trust what you people believe in, for ovious reasons.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Russ
# Russ 06-10-2012 19:47
Well we are waiting? what's yours?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Russ
# Russ 06-10-2012 20:14
My only guess is, as with others like you have done, is you people take our post like this and posted the parts you like on your alarmist leftard websites. I'm not saying you did that but sometimes it's actually where correlation means causation, as your kind likes to push. Face meet mirror!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 06-10-2012 21:45
To be fair Russ he has claimed to be a Skeptic. Quote:
I’d appreciate it if you would draw a distinction between those of us who are sceptical of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Cliimate Change (CACC) hypothesis and the “Slayers”/PSI Membership.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
# Guest 06-14-2012 12:37
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 06-14-2012 20:10
Yeah he was actually using the exact same opperating procedure as the guy he thought was ever so brave. Really didn't take long to out himself though.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 06-10-2012 21:02
Internet Troll and Alarmist Propagandist. He also searches in vain for the ever elusive, single, Peer Reviewed Paper that rules out Natural Variability as cause for observed Climate.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-10-2012 21:45
I have provided at least 3 papers to Gator on 3 separate occasions on Natural Variability and pointed him to Google Scholar where there are hundreds of citations. He deems to ignore them and then mindlessly parrot the question over and over again.

Apparently, there is no "ice" shortage in the Gator household.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-11-2012 07:28
Quoting Drewski:
I have provided at least 3 papers to Gator on 3 separate occasions on Natural Variability and pointed him to Google Scholar where there are hundreds of citations. He deems to ignore them and then mindlessly parrot the question over and over again.


BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

What a delusional nut!

Cool Whip thinks he can disprove what noone else has been able to discredit, natural variabilty!

Hey Cool Whip! Now let's see you walk on all that open water in the Arctic!!!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Robert
# Robert 06-11-2012 17:53
What is most telling is that it would be only 3 papers. As there are only 3 it should not be hard to remember which papers and where they were found. Given the fact that he dislikes you as much as he does you would think he would post the links to those 3 papers any chance he could wouldn't you? Yet instead of the 3 papers we get drewski's version of history. Just like his climate "scientist" heroes, history is whatever they believe it was, not what actually occurred.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-11-2012 18:00
Hey Robert! Yes, this is what temp data looks like before in is Hansenized...

Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-11-2012 18:08
And of course, this never gets old...



Yeah, I'm going to get worked up over artifacts, and a non issue... :zzz
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-13-2012 02:18
Gator, I don’t know if anyone has ever tried this before, but I want to try and hypnotise you online so as to help you remember. Please close your eyes and let your mind drift back to a time not so long ago. You are getting sleepy, sleepy, sleepy. . . We are going back to a time when you still believed that John O’Sullivan was a legitimate lawyer and Anthony Watt’s was still going on about NASA’s fraudulent temperature record and it was just after that unfortunate incident you had with the neighbor’s boy behind the piggery. Are you there?

Now I want you to imagine that you are sitting at your computer. Do you see the empty bags of Doritos and chocolate on the left next to those well-worn stacks of Playboys? And can you see the clutch of empty Jack Daniels bottles on your right? Now what do you remember – how do you feel? You are angry aren’t you? Drewski just bitch-slapped you yet again in front of your fellow sCeptics because of your inadequate knowledge of climate and you are desperately trying to counter him in any way you can. You want revenge and you are grasping at straws and you want to smash the rest of your toys, but I don't want you to get angry Gator, I want you to relax. . .take a deep breath and let it out – let the frustration flow out of you, be at peace, think of Sarah Palin and Jim Inhofe together and smile. You are feeling better now.

continued. . .
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-13-2012 02:20
Now I want you to focus on the screen and remember what was written there. Can you see it? It was Drewski’s response to your denial that his last batch of peer-reviewed papers dealing with atmospheric physics and natural variation was actual “proof”. He had posted the point that if these papers were considered proof to ALL the peak scientific bodies in the world, but not to you, then “proof” is dependent on the quality of the mind that is attempting to divine said proof. Drewski then wanted to know what special powers and/or qualifications you have that is above and beyond all these renowned experts for divining what is “proof” and what is not.

And then that is when the Valium kicked in and you passed out.

Now when I count to three, I want you to say “Oh shit”, slap yourself and wake up. One. . .two. . . three. . .

Remember now?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-13-2012 06:16
So... still no way to refute nature?

And that is why we are subjected to fifth grade BS, from an adult.

Maybe some day you will find someone who cares. :zzz :zzz :zzz

And no, it is not hypnosis making me sleepy, it is your lame bleating on and on about the sky falling. :zzz

"Ooooh, it's never been so hot!" :eek:

What a sore loser, gullible lemming, and immature liar you are! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-13-2012 08:10
Gator: "And that is why we are subjected to fifth grade BS, from an adult."

And then you proceed to put 8 smiley faces into your post.

You are one of a kind Gator.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-13-2012 08:18
Yep! I am the only adult to ever use an 'emoticon' (that's what us adult's call them little fella!).

OMG! You just disproved NV!!!

Oh wait. Nope. Just more drivel... :zzz
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 06-11-2012 23:03
Drewski your dishonesty is showing again. You know full well that Natural Variability cannot be ruled out because no one has yet to measure and understand it yet.

If your much vaunted 97% of "Publishing sCientists" had done so they would not be such complete and utter failures at predicting climate.

Their Predictions fail because they are wrong.

Nor would alarmist loons be Recanting. 'The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing,' he told 'We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear cut, but it hasn’t happened.

'The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world.
'[The temperature] has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising - carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.'British scientist James Lovelock www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134092/Gaia-scientist-James-Lovelock-I-alarmist-climate-change.html
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Russ
# Russ 06-10-2012 00:15
I see Droolskirt rides again. :D
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
anne
# anne 06-10-2012 01:33
www.google.co.uk/.../ I missed this little snippet somehow, the US government is not very careful who they invest your money with, well in the body of the story it's not your money, but then, a little afterthought at the bottom or the article, Solyndra anyone.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-10-2012 06:03
Hey anne! The article states...

"The company did not receive any taxpayer funds."

Now that's just a lie. If my government spent any time at all promoting this, then we paid for it. Where does government get its funding to operate? :o
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
anne
# anne 06-10-2012 02:48
www.google.co.uk/.../ I just wanted to put this link on to show how reality is being ignored. Today the 10th June, almost mid summer in the UK, the temperature is a maximum of 9 degrees, the norm is 15-18, and this has happened for the past 4 years. I am certainly not saying 'the end is nigh' what I am saying is that the heating of the planet from the time of the little ice age has perhaps 'naturally ended'.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
anne
# anne 06-10-2012 15:56 Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
anne
# anne 06-10-2012 15:59
Drewski, and yes again
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
anne
# anne 06-10-2012 16:00
www.google.co.uk/.../ and yes again Drewski
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
anne
# anne 06-10-2012 16:04
www.google.co.uk/.../ and yes again Drewski
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-10-2012 21:24
Anne, Two things: (1) Why did you point me to information that is 2 years out of date? And (2) citing Stephen Goddard (?!) – I mean, seriously??? Do you also get legal advice from OMG’Sullivan?

Well, let’s start with what the US navy had to say in 2012 (Both Gardner and Brozena are Navy): “Coincident multiscale estimates of Arctic sea ice thickness “ Published 7 February 2012. Gardner, J., J. Richter-Menge, S. Farrell, and J. Brozena (2012), , Eos Trans. AGU, 93(6), 57, doi:10.1029/2012EO060001.

"Extremes aside, however, scientists say that the Arctic has entered a “new normal.” In December 2011, NOAA issued the annual Arctic Report Card. Last year saw the second-lowest sea-ice extent on record, but it’s not just the ice that has changed. Near-surface air temperatures in 2011 were 1.5 degrees Celsius above the 1981-2010 baseline period. Ocean temperatures and salinity levels appear to be stabilizing after a period of warming and freshening. And Arctic lands look to be greening up.

The Navy, however, is looking even further into the future and trying to ascertain what the Arctic might look like as much as 30 years out — about the time it takes to design and build new ships.

continued. . .
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-10-2012 21:28
That the Arctic is changing is not news. The sea-ice extent has declined by 12 percent per decade since 1979, and the ice is thinning too. Model results from the University of Washington Applied Physics Lab showed that the volume of Arctic sea ice in January 2012 was 41 percent lower than in 1979. Thickness matters because compared to thick multiyear ice, thin first-year ice can more easily melt or be pushed around and broken up by storms."

Let’s see what PIOMAS says -- as of 10 days ago (PS if you check out the graphs from the link below you just might be able to say that the lowest point in 2008 matches up with the highest point in 2010 – depends how intellectually dishonest you are, i.e. Goddard): psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/

“According to the model sea ice volume hasn't been as low on May 31st as this year. It looks like we're seeing the same crash as in 2010 and 2011, but right now 2012 is 562 km3 lower than 2011, and 1262 km3 lower than 2010.”

Average thickness for May 31st (in m): Notice a trend?
• 2005: 2.33
• 2006: 2.31
• 2007: 2.16
• 2008: 2.29
• 2009: 2.14
• 2010: 1.95
• 2011: 1.86
• 2012: 1.82

Why is it that every time a sCeptic tries to dazzle me with a “smoking gun” it turns out to be a melted plastic water pistol giving off noxious fumes?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 06-10-2012 22:06
Quote:
Model results from the University of Washington Applied Physics Lab showed that the volume of Arctic sea ice in January 2012 was 41 percent lower than in 1979. Thickness matters because compared to thick multiyear ice, thin first-year ice can more easily melt or be pushed around and broken up by storms."
Model Results? Why not Empirical Observations? We all know how well Models predict Climate. See Above.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-10-2012 22:21
Amirlach, Is that the only thing you pulled from my posts and the links to the studies???????

Holy Christ!

How do you guys manage to tie your shoes?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 06-10-2012 22:44
Drewski you really think your going to convince anybody with a steaming pile of model driven drivel? We just showed you how epicly the GCM's have failed to predict reality.

How epicly the IPCC has failed to predict Climate?

Quote:
Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics said, “It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.”
Tell us why we should ever listen to people who keep calling Failed Model Results EVIDENCE?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-10-2012 22:54
Model-driven?! You obviously didn't read the source material (you know that thing that I mentioned before? The studies which underpin what real scientists say and what sCeptics like to mangle? The thing that keeps you from making a fool of yourself?).

Go back and re-read then post.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 06-10-2012 23:39
Go back and look at the complete and utter failure of the IPCC predictions and the CERES Global Satalite Observations VS the IPCC Climate MODELS.

Then explain why were they so wrong yet you still belive Drewski? Or can you even admit they were wrong?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-10-2012 23:59
Model Validation and Uncertainty

PIOMAS is a numerical model with components for sea ice and ocean and the capacity for assimilating some kinds of observations. PIOMAS has been EXTENSIVELY VALIDATED through comparisons with OBSERVATIONS from US-Navy submarines, oceanographic moorings, and satellites. From these VALIDATION STUDIES we arrive at CONSERVATIVE estimates of the uncertainty in the trend of ± 1.0 103 km3/decade.

Here are 4 links to sites with more observations and explanations PS its not that they are ever wrong, its that sCeptics are NEVER right:

psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/

news.thomasnet.com/green_clean/2012/06/06/the-climate-change-controversy-is-arctic-sea-ice-really-shrinking/

sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/arctic-sea-ice-has-it-really-fully-recovered/2012/05/16/gIQAgI8EUU_blog.html
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 06-11-2012 00:43
Quote:
While there is a decreasing trend in mean Arctic sea ice extent from 1979 through 2010, the Antarctic results show a positive trend.
So whatever.

And the always wrong IPCC Model predictions? You keep avoiding them.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Red Jeff
# Red Jeff 06-10-2012 22:18
Ah Drewski! Remember the days you used to be relevant? Such a great fall from grace! :D
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-10-2012 22:35
A fall from sCeptic Grace means that I am moving in the right direction. PS Did you catch this today:

Researchers from America, India, Japan and Australia say the study is the MOST COMPREHENSIVE LOOK at how the oceans have warmed.

The study, published today in the journal Nature Climate Change, examined a dozen different models used to project climate change, and compared them with OBSERVATIONS of ocean warming over the past 50 years.

It found natural variations accounted for about 10 per cent of rising temperatures, but MAN-MADE man-made greenhouse gases were the MAJOR CAUSE.

Those darn Indians, Aussies and Japanese -- obviously part of the world-wide conspiracy.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 06-11-2012 00:30
Is that the same B Santer who edited the IPCC finding to say the exact opposite of what the final draft said? www.john-daly.com/sonde.htm

Yeah ill trust him. :-*
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-11-2012 02:17
A 1997 "analysis" about the "Greenhouse Industry" and Bob Santer.

Oh no! Our hoax has been uncovered. You got me -- I am slain.

Congratulations amirlach. Well we almost fooled you didn't we? I'll call the other guys to fold up the tent. We lost. Drat! All that climate money within our grasp and then that darn amirlach shows up.

Now what will we do?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Red Jeff
# Red Jeff 06-11-2012 16:01
Har har, Cool Whip you slay me!!! :D

Leaving aside the complete lack of 'world' ocean temperature measurement over the 50 years, it should be obvious that tweeking parameters to obtain the sought for conclusion (ie Gergis methodology AKA the Himalayan FOOTHILL glacier prediction AKA twice as many penguins as once thought!) is the backbone of environmental 'science'. How long till pal review has to pull this press release from the globull warming ash can of history?

One more thing, here is how Europe now views the "biggest crisis to mankind"... "MEPs have cancelled plans to send a delegation to the UN Rio+20 summit on sustainable development, due to take place in June in Brazil... "The huge increase in the estimated cost of attending the summit is simply not justifiable, especially at a time when many Europeans are faced with economic hardship," said Environment Committee Chairman Matthias Groote." www.euractiv.com/sustainability/meps-cancel-rio20-trip-cut-costs-news-512607 See Cool Whip, they're broke, skint, pennyless!!! That includes Germany's solar revolution!!!

PS Gergis lasted 3 weeks yet sailed right through pal review!!! :-x
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-13-2012 03:00
Hey Red Jeff,
Speaking about Germany and solar, did you see my post earlier on regarding Germany getting half (HALF!) their entire energy from solar on Saturday two weeks ago? Imagine that? The most industrialized country in Europe getting so much clean energy basically for free for the next 20 or 25 years. (PS Before you say it, I am aware that there was a capital cost that needs to be repaid. But at nowhere near the cost of spiralling fossil fuels and all the associated health and environment costs). And just imagine the security that brings to them knowing that they don't have to be so dependent on a dirty and dangerous fuel sold to them by unsavory and unstable countries. I can tell you, other countries better start getting their act together on renewables or they will be tossed into the trash heap of history.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Red Jeff
# Red Jeff 06-13-2012 09:35
I concede you are right Cool Whip. Solar and wind are indeed "nowhere near the cost of spiralling fossil fuels and all the associated health and environment costs)." Wind is 4x and solar 20x more expensive!! :o Oh and for all of 1 single day!!!! And the environmental damage caused by wind and biomass as well as Chinese rare earth metal mining... thats insane to people like me who are concerned with the environment.

Ever wonder why Germany can't afford your so called "free" energy? Seems it should be a no-brainer. Unless, of course, it's a without-a-brainer.

Germany now exports her energy money to nuclear suppliers France and the Czech Republic... except, of course, for 1 single Saturday in May. You do know that energy demands drop on the weekends... don't you? Then again, all this renewable energy means more coal imports too!!!

And of course, all this energy being "free", as you say, it just beggars the imagination why a hard working, industrious nation like Germany would pay "electricity prices... that are already among the highest in the world" www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/26/us-climate-germany-solar-idUSBRE84P0FI20120526

Then again, in the bankrupt EU, renewables DO make economic sense! :D
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-13-2012 10:01
Hey Jeff! I have tried to get the raw data for that 50% claim, and so far have not found it. Have you found the source and the data? My guess is it is about as accurate as the 97% consensus. ;-)
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Red Jeff
# Red Jeff 06-13-2012 11:53
Hi Gator! I too have tried to find the source for the story. The only reference (repeatedly) I can find is that the story comes from Reuters as a press release from Norbert Allnoch, director of the Institute of the Renewable Energy Industry (IWR) in Muenster.

Furthermore, his claim is based on input from all combined privately run solar installations, ie home based energy. My suspicion is that it is based on the 'badged' theoretical output of said renewables rather than the actual feed ins. "Germany consistently gets 4% of its electricity from solar and about 20% from renewable energy. Its solar capacity is almost the amount of all the world combined. To do that, the country is spending $263 billion - about 8% of GDP in 2011 - to transform its energy sources" www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/20120530/germany-hits-world-record-solar-electricity-last-weekend.htm

That said, Germany was only able to do this when demand was at a minimum. So much for what can be achieved with half the worlds solar capabilities! I guess low hanging fruit is better than no fruit at all!! Unless, of course, the fruit gives you food poisoning!!!!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-13-2012 11:59
Quote:
My suspicion is that it is based on the 'badged' theoretical output of said renewables rather than the actual feed ins.
My suspicion as well. Add to that the fact that they probably definitely cherrypicked a date that has a low power usage, spring in Germany is rather mild (I once lived there), no need for heat or A/C.

Stagecraft ala Hansen 1988. :zzz
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 06-11-2012 23:32
Ben “beat the crap out of Pat Michaels” Santer has admited his retooling of the IPCC Findings. And he still can't make accurate predictions cause he's still wrong.

He also refuses to release data like your other hero Mann. climateaudit.org/2008/11/10/santer-refuses-data-request/ The comments are a good read.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Werner Brozek
# Werner Brozek 06-11-2012 00:33
A sentence from the ocean study says:
EMILY WOODGATE: He says there's simply no way the upper layers of every ocean in the world could have warmed by more than one-tenth of a degree Celsius through natural causes alone.

They specifically mention "upper layers". See the graph below to see what happened to sea surface temperatures over the last decade and a half. There has been no change for 15 years and 4 months, and over the last 10 years, there has been a cooling.
www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002.33/trend

P.S. The April value of 0.292 is not on WFT yet, but that will not change what I have written above.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-11-2012 01:37
Hey Werner,
WHAT A GREAT WEBSITE!!!

Did you know you can add your own values? I changed the very arbitrary 1997 and 2003 values that were on the site (why did they choose those values -- hmmmm?) to 1980 values. I chose 1980 as it is a much more representative value -- you know, not so cherry picked.

Well, let me tell you, those trend lines now look totally different. Wow!

Great tool. Thanx again Werner.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Werner Brozek
# Werner Brozek 06-11-2012 16:02
You are welcome!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
anne
# anne 06-11-2012 17:10
Pete, I am protecting myself as I do have a high profile job with the government, although they are fully aware of my views, I am not allowed to publicly air them without going through our publicity team, which they have refused to allow. Like most of us I have to earn my living. As you are aware, all governments support the AGW THEORY, as gospel
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 06-12-2012 00:20
Hey Pete! Your entitled to your "humble opinion". As i can't really care what you think i'll just say... Whatever.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-13-2012 03:06
Hey Gator,
I know how fond you are of using small areas to make grand sweeping statements about global climate so I thought you would find this interesting:

The lower 48 just had their warmest spring EVER (in the historical record, of course). and not by just a teensy bit either, they SMASHED it!! Wow!

Of course, they did use thermometers to measure these temps and I know now that they are part of the world-wide conspiracy, so you can't really trust them. But, anyway, I thought you would find it interesting.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Joker
# Joker 06-13-2012 05:15
Drewski

I'm still waiting to hear from you about my cab for New Year's Eve, will you be available?

I need to place a firm booking.

I din't want to walk home from the night club!!!!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-13-2012 07:58
Quoting Drewski:
Hey Gator,
I know how fond you are of using small areas to make grand sweeping statements about global climate so I thought you would find this interesting:


I have absolutely no idea what you are blathering on about.

I do not pick out a few bristle cone pines to redifine world cliamtge history.

I do not point at the last 150 years, out of the last 4,500,000,000.

I do not study only the glaciers at the base of the mountain ranges.

I do not point out silly little artifacts like...

Quote:
The lower 48 just had their warmest sping EVER...
What I have said since day one is that moone can disprove natural variabilty as the cause of recent or any climate changes.

Now go change your shorts! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-13-2012 08:02
Pardon the typos... hard to see the screen, when I am laughing so hard.

My coworkers must think I am the happiest employee they know! ;-)
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-13-2012 08:06
# Gator 2012-06-13 06:58:
"I have absolutely no idea what you are blathering on about."

(2 days earlier. . . )
# Gator 2012-06-11 17:08
"And of course, this never gets old..."


See boys and girls, this is why we don't do drugs.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-13-2012 08:12
There he goes again with the cherries! :lol: :lol: :lol:

He totally ignores 4,500,000,000 years of geologic record and natural variability, and leaps upon a graph I used to illustrate the fraud of his priests. :o

Yes kids, do stay off drugs, and away from crazies like Cool Whip! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-13-2012 08:43
Yes kids, stay away from Drewski and the KARAZY university presidents, peak scientific bodies and definitely avoid the US military (they are the karaziest). And if you see the British Conservative Party and the American Petroleum Institute or the World Meteorological Organisation, cross to the other side of the street. If you see a BP, Exxon or Shell Station, keep your head down and don't draw attention to yourself.

To be absolutely safe, do what Gator does and stay indoors away from the windows.

Pssst Gator. Have you heard what the alarmists are now saying? That the US has just had the warmest continuous 12 months in their history? Can you believe the garbage they are teaching the kids these days?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-13-2012 08:44
Really Cool Whip! I just cannot stomach another of your cherries! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Disproven nature lately? ;-)
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-13-2012 08:47
And a Frankencherry (or Hansencherry) at that!!! :lol:

Take another gander at that graph you somehow copied, without seeing. ;-)

Must be some good stuff Cool Whip! 8)
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 06-13-2012 19:48
Yes stay way away from university presidents, peak scientific bodies and all the other alarmist loons Drewski appeals to for Author-eh-teh!

None of them have ever made a skillfull prediction. And we all know what that means. Quote:
If your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.”
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 06-13-2012 20:14
Quote:
And I must admit that those adjustments constituting virtually all of the warming signal in the last 40 years is disconcerting. When “global warming” only shows up after the data are adjusted, one can understand why so many people are suspicious of the adjustments.
wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/13/warming-in-the-ushcn-is-mainly-an-artifact-of-adjustments/
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 06-13-2012 20:30 Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-13-2012 22:41
OMG! amirlach you keep finding all these treasures. I have changed my mind -- I am going to 2nd you (instead of Adam) to succeed Gator as the Chairman of C.O.W.

Hold on, isn't this the sort of thing that Anthony Watts spent 4 years looking into in that very profitable (for him , anyway) Surface Station Study? He used to talk about this kind of stuff ALL THE TIME -- remember?. Funny, he never brings it up anymore. I wonder why? Knowing Anthony, I am sure he has a very good reason.

Well done again amirlach -- you are destroying the CAGW "theory" one juicy morsel at a time.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 06-14-2012 19:49
The NOAA "Adjustments", were found on NOAA's own servers. They are almost exactly like the "Adjustments" NIWA was convicted of making. Quote:
According to the August official statement of the claim from NZCSC, climate scientists cooked the books by using the same alleged ‘trick’ employed by British and American scientists. This involves subtly imposing a warming bias during what is known as the ‘homogenisation’ process that occurs when climate data needs to be adjusted.

The specific charge brought against the Kiwi government was that its climate scientists had taken the raw temperature records of the country and then adjusted them artificially with the result that a steeper warming trend was created than would otherwise exist by examination of the raw data alone.

Indeed, the original Kiwi records show no warming during the 20th century, but after government sponsored climatologists had manipulated the data a warming trend of 1C appeared.
www.infiniteunknown.net/2010/10/11/kiwigate-global-warming-scam-revealed-in-court/
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-13-2012 22:16
Well, we are on to German solar now – apparently the Council of Wrong enjoys long sessions of S&M. Where should I begin – there is so much to say and so few brain cells to process it.
Don’t you just love the title of this article?
German solar juggernaut rolls on despite tariff cuts by James Holloway - Apr 6 2012, 2:40am WAST
Solar power boom may have eliminated peak-use price volatility

Germany is now getting 20% of their TOTAL electricity from renewable sources rising to 35 or 36% by 2020 and they are on target to reach 100% renewable energy by 2050. This will be a tremendous boon to Germany’s consumers in the near future because not only will this offset the spirally costs of fossil fuel energy production that every county now faces, Germany’s consumers will only be buying only half as much.Germany is achieving all this while hitting the lowest unemployment since reunification.

A recent study by the Institute for Future Energy Systems (IZES) in Germany found that the effect of photovoltaics is a 40 percent reduction in midday electricity prices, with a mean 10 percent reduction overall.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-13-2012 22:18
This dip in daytime electricity price is entirely thanks to Germany's photovoltaics infrastructure. That has rocketed from an installed capacity of 6GW in 2008 to 25GW in 2011—amounting to half the world's installed solar power, with 7.5GW installed in that year alone. It makes intuitive sense that solar power would make electricity prices more competitive during daylight hours, but what's striking is the scale of the effect. As veteran business and environment journalist Giles Parkinson put it at Renew Economy, "solar PV is not just licking the cream off the profits of the fossil fuel generators—it is in fact eating their entire cake."
Parkinson explains the impact of solar upon German energy markets with respect to the merit order, which prioritizes—based on marginal cost—which sources of energy are utilized in the face of increasing live demand. By this metric, renewable energy sources like wind and solar power are extremely competitive because there is no fuel cost to factor in. Their marginal cost is zero.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-13-2012 22:18
It's likely that feed-in tariffs will be abolished outright long before 2020, and the consensus in the German solar industry appears to be that this will make very little difference to progress. AS PHOTOVOLTAIC POWER FAST APPROACHES GRID PARITY—i.e. a cost level with that of purchasing from the grid—the idea of financial incentives for solar installations appears increasingly redundant. If the upshot of reducing feed-in tariffs is to keep the solar industry honest, how bad is that, really?
And according to Germany's bureau of statistics reports, the country exported more electricity than it imported during the first half of 2011. This disproves widespread rumors circulating in North America that Germany is closing its nuclear power plants by relying on imports of electricity from its neighbors.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-14-2012 06:14
Hey Cool Whip! Why not ask your Chevy salesman if you should buy a volt from him? :lol:
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-14-2012 09:14
When I get an inane comment like that (or a photo), I know it is because you are bereft of an idea or a counter argument.

Drewski wins again!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-14-2012 09:36
Quote:
Drewski wins again!
Yeah! You and Charlie Sheen! :lol: :lol: :lol:

How's that campaign to wipe out natural variability coming Cool Whip Cowboy? :lol:
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-14-2012 10:08
Do the odds of 1 in 531,441 seem "natural" to you Gator?

The NCDC reports that "each of the 12 months ranked among the warmest third of their historical distribution for the first time in the 1895-present record. The odds of this occurring randomly is 1 in 531,441."

Gator, your response to this staggering statistic warrants at least 11 smiley faces.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-14-2012 10:26
Does the number 4,500,000,000 mean anything to you? :o

Have you inspected that graph you cut and paste?

Have you learned anything in the past 18 years of your life?

It has been warmer. It has been colder.

It will be warmer. It will be colder.

Oooooooooooh! So very natural............

Looks like its NV 4,500,000,000 and Cool Whip 0. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-14-2012 21:16
4,500,000,000 = the brain cells that have died in the last 2 years of your life?

If you are talking about the age of the earth, then I don't see the connection.
Are you saying it because you have run out of ideas? Throwing as much shit against the wall hoping some of it sticks?

327 is a more relevant number (the number of consecutive months where the temperature for the corresponding month is higher than the 20th century average).

Or how about this number -- 400,000. That is the last time CO2 levels have been this high (and what was the temperature like then?).

Or 7 million -- the last time CO2 levels were twice as high as expected in 2050.

But, hey, throw another 20 year-old graph at me from a Stephen Goddard or the Heartland Institute -- maybe that will stop the uniform warming of ALL the oceans and seas going up up another 0.1 degree (what could have caused such a global phenomenon -- hmmmm?).

Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face,
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Russ
# Russ 06-14-2012 23:29
As opposed to your 4.5 brain cells but then again you only have 5 of them!

Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face, Smiley face,

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

K :o l whip rides again!

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-15-2012 09:04
Hey Russ! Don't you just get a kick out of Cool Whip dismissing 4,500,000,000 years of geologic record, and then turn right around and tout 327 months of fraudulently created 'heat'! :lol:

And of course the cherry picked paleo CO2 levels, the cherry picked time lines, etc... all while ignoring the fraud and deceit from his priests.

Never mind that they constantly rewrite climate history, like the 'Ministry of Truth'.

Never mind that their leading ethics advisor lies, steals, and likely forges.

Never mind that none of their predictions or models are ever correct.

Never mind the fact that the alarmists refuse to show their work, even under FOIA requests.

Never mind the fact that they cannot win debates on 'settled science'.

Never mind that all of this can be explained by natural variability.

Never mind (and ignore) the data that amirlach has patiently shown Cool Whip time and time again.

Never mind the 1000+ peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW alarm, and zero papers refuting natural variability.

Cool Whip has found religion, and he is a zealot.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 06-15-2012 20:15
Quote:
Parkinson explains the impact of solar upon German energy markets with respect to the merit order, which prioritizes—based on marginal cost—which sources of energy are utilized in the face of increasing live demand. By this metric, renewable energy sources like wind and solar power are extremely competitive because there is no fuel cost to factor in. Their marginal cost is zero.
I would love to hear more about the details of this "Merit Order". I'm assuming it is a contrived Metric designed to make PV look like it's more competitive than it really is.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Joker
# Joker 06-14-2012 08:20
Cab drivers, unreliable and never show up when you need one.

Perhaps I should get a bus?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 06-14-2012 19:50
Whatever you do DON'T buy a Volt. They tend to go up in flames at the drop of a hat!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 06-14-2012 22:25
Hey Gator, I have another number for you -- 1,000. You know that a picture is worth a thousand words? nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
PS Let Anne see this (to help her understand the the difference between extent and volume).

Well, this is it for me. Remember, after denial comes eventual acceptance.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-15-2012 06:27
So... you are still basing all of your 'facts' on fudged data, and not the actual data.

OK. You lose, again, because you are willingly gullible.

The Cool Whip Cowboy's campaign to eradicate natural variability continues... :lol: :lol: :lol:
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 06-15-2012 06:30
"4,500,000,000 = the brain cells that have died in the last 2 years of your life? If you are talking about the age of the earth, then I don't see the connection."

Yeah, we know. You never see any connections unless they are spoon fed to you by alarmist priests. This is how everything just passes you by.

This is how you cannot see nature in action for 4,500,000,000, years and think the last 150 years define the Earth.

Found that paper yet? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
anne
# anne 06-16-2012 03:03
Drewski,

How did you do at school, you really are grasping at straws. Dont forget it is now not known as 'global warming' or 'climate change' it is now 'sustainable development'. That is the point climate change covers everything, from variable local weather to variable global weather, to hot weather to cold weather, to hurricanes to lack of wind for turbines, to sunny days to cloudy days. Joe Public are no longer falling for it so they are now saying that our lifestyles are not 'sustainable'. Now if you truly believe that, and I know you are a true believer, then less people on the planet is the goal, do you get me? so stop being silly and live your life!!!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
amirlach
# amirlach 06-16-2012 13:27
Drewski might be the Poster Boy for this system of Edu-ma-kation. :D zombietime.com/teaching_as_a_subversive_activity/
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
anne
# anne 06-16-2012 03:14
email2.btconnect.bt.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9iZtlqg0A8%26feature=youtube_gdata_player There you go Drewski, see what they are up to in Rio, do you see any intelligence in the statements at all?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
anne
# anne 06-16-2012 03:23
www.google.co.uk/.../ Drewski, this is what Rio is all about.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
anne
# anne 06-16-2012 03:40
We also all really need to understand what Living PlanIT really means, you have probably heard of 'smart cities'. What this means is that people will no longer live out of cities, all transport will be 'community transport', electricity and gas use will be monitored, the majority of the land will be used for sustainable development (natural ecosystems) with no humans allowed anywhere near. People will work and live in a system and activity will be closely monitored. Anyone fancy it?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 

Add comment

Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Long links are shortened but still work.

PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to administrator' link. If you find your post gone, it's because you violated the TOS.


Security code
Refresh