jakee 1,593 #76 November 19, 2012 QuoteJakee, you need you need to think before you type. Seeing as you felt the need to completely re-write that post after I had replied to it and pointed out the flaw... right back at ya.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #77 November 19, 2012 Quote And you still can't justify your the blatant misreading the post in order to put words in my mouth. No [Shocked] there. You're being a dick, and here's why. There is no way, given the context of the conversation, that anyone could have interpreted your original post as simply saying "I like it when it's cool in summer". Never going to happen, not from anyone. Quote OK. So, you didn't understand what was written but have no problem with making assumptions and dreaming up something to respond to? Well cry me a river. Sick. OK. Now, since you are defending Kallend, YOU justify putting words in my mouth. He's not gonna do it. He's still trying to pull up his pants. Quote So your post leaves two options open, for people to ignore it, or reply to what they think you meant - You just identified your own problem. If you don't understand what was said in ANY situation, You don't just blurt out stupid shit....you get clarification before you open your mouth and prove yourself. In your case it would be better to ignore. Quote .... the USA is not the earth even if it is part of the earth, and US data is not global data even if it contributes to global data. Thank you Captain Obvious. The world's (get it, the world) population has now been educated.OK you are being totally idiotic. You can't comprehend the fact that nobody in this thread has said what you just wrote. Ignore, jakee. Add something to the thread, if you can, that makes sense in the thread instead.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #78 November 19, 2012 Quote Quote Jakee, you need you need to think before you type. Seeing as you felt the need to completely re-write that post after I had replied to it and pointed out the flaw... right back at ya. Like I said, think before you spout off. Are you implying that I read your post and then went back to change my post because of it? You would be wrong there. Sorry jakee. I often make mistakes in typing and don't catch it until after the send...so I go back and edit. Your post came in while I was editing, My middle name is Fumble-Fingered Fuck. My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,593 #79 November 19, 2012 Quote So, you didn't understand what was written but have no problem with making assumptions and dreaming up something to respond to? First, I didn't respond to it and second, anyone who did get the (supposedly) correct meaning of your post would only have done so by making an assumption. So, to get this perfectly clear, because your post didn't explicitly say what you meant, you are saying that you intended for no-one to know what your post meant? Quote Now, since you are defending Kallend, YOU justify putting words in my mouth. It was the most likely interpretation of a vague post. Now, your turn to justify putting words in kallend's mouth. Quote You can't comprehend the fact that nobody in this thread has said what you just wrote. And yet we're back to you calling kallend an idiot for pointing it out. (Oh, BTW: irony alert) Finally, I'm going to admit to being wrong in a previous post. It's not that you were either laying a gotcha or just being very angry today, I think it's both.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,593 #80 November 19, 2012 QuoteLike I said, think before you spout off. Are you implying that I read your post and then went back to change my post because of it? You would be wrong there. Mainly, I'm implying that you didn't think before you typed. Which is evidently correct. QuoteSorry jakee. I often make mistakes in typing and don't catch it until after the send Apology accepted... but I should point out it was a mistake in reading, not typing.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blueblur 0 #81 November 19, 2012 Pops, RE: US reporting cooler while World reports warmer. If the US's cooler data were taken out, then by the nature of averages, the warmer average of the world would actually be slightly higher. Take for instance the numbers 1,4,5,6. Average them together to 16/4=4. Take out 1... average the last three (warmer temps) 15/3=5. That's how the world still reads warmer temps even tho the sub-climate around the US is cooler.In every man's life he will be allotted one good woman and one good dog. That's all you get, so appreciate them while the time you have with them lasts. - RiggerLee Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #82 November 19, 2012 QuoteLet's just for a second assume that AGW is real. What would need to change to rectify it? There is warming in the pipe that is already outside our influence. It's unlikely that any of our efforts will have a measurable effect in the 1-3 decades, so what warming is unavoidable must be accomodated. We can adapt our water supply, energy infrastructure, emergency plans (severe weather related), and expect some degree of population migration in the US (Phoenix is a stupid place for old people to live). Globally, there will be greater unrest as populations fight over diminishing water and food in many locations. Some places will benefit from global warming, but social norms and rigid trade and geopolitical relationships are likely to significantly retard adaptation efforts. Basically we're in a position where what's coming will be largely tolerable, at least in the US, it'll just be uncomfortable at points. The trick is applying the brakes to this train we're on...sure, it's not going to stop right away, but we're certainly better off trying to slow down than speed up. The extent of man's contribution to AGW from carbon emissions is not something I'm comfortable talking to. However the means of reducing those emissions are pretty obvious and beneficial even outside of AGW. Less pollution, less reliance on diminishing resources...these are nice improvements to hand off to our kids and grandkids. I can throw some less obvious suggestions out there at another point, but don't have time today. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #83 November 19, 2012 Quote http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100310_cooler.html Global vs US. Pretty obvious distinction. Localized weather patterns are not necessarily indicative of larger trends. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #84 November 19, 2012 I agree with that. And I think that was one of Kallend's points in the beggining. Question to all: In light of the myriad reports from both sides of the issue coming from so many "authorities" on the subject saying so many different things, some diametrically opposed..........How the hell can we believe ANY of those reports. Both sides reference reports that support their flavor or understanding or beliefs.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #85 November 19, 2012 Quote Quote http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100310_cooler.html Global vs US. Pretty obvious distinction. Localized weather patterns are not necessarily indicative of larger trends. Blues, Dave Exactly. From the article right up therein front: "NOAA’s State of the Climate report for the winter season (December through February) and the month of February, state that temperatures were below normal for the contiguous United States. " Hell, they didn't even include Alaska and Hawaii! Did they just cancel each other out? My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #86 November 19, 2012 >In light of the myriad reports from both sides of the issue coming from so >many "authorities" on the subject saying so many different things, some diametrically >opposed..........How the hell can we believe ANY of those reports. You could ask the same about a great many topics. Smoking? A lot of tobacco-funded studies found the risks of smoking, and the risks of secondhand smoke, to be completely overblown. Evolution? Lots of people publish all sorts of things questioning the science of evolution. Paleontology? Hard to believe what scientists say about the past if other people say the earth is only 6000 years old. Skydiving safety? There are plenty of "authorities" on the net who say that it's insanely dangerous. The trick is knowing who to listen to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #87 November 19, 2012 Which data set is the guy using? It's been 28 years since a below normal month? Is that by the old data set or the new data set effective Sept. 2012 http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/GHCNM-v3.2.0-FAQ.pdf My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #88 November 19, 2012 QuoteWhich data set is the guy using? It's been 28 years since a below normal month? Is that by the old data set or the new data set effective Sept. 2012 http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/GHCNM-v3.2.0-FAQ.pdf New, according to the image. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #89 November 19, 2012 My referanceto the Miocene was to point out that todays co2 levels are what they were 14 million years ago, and yet todays temps. are five to ten degrees cooler. There seems to be more at play than CO2. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #90 November 19, 2012 Here's the source the journalists were using, including the quote about 332nd consecutive month. It's dated October 2012. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #91 November 19, 2012 QuoteCan you point me in the direction of a source that details what would need to be done...completely...entirely? Point being I think it would require economic suicide to solve the problem. Assuming you need to drive somewhere tomorrow, can you tell me every millimeter of rotation you're going to apply to the steering wheel in order to arrive safely at your destination? Don't worry if you can't, I'm content with more general directions like "Take a right on X, a left on Y, go straight for Z miles, and it'll be on your right." Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #92 November 19, 2012 Pops you have got it all wrong. Local event like storms and droughts and heat/cold spells are ONLY to be used as examples to prove AGW, it is not allowed to be used the other way around. In fact there are no set of circumstances or data that can refute AGW. Snow? Global Warming! No major hurricanes? Global Warming! Major hurricane? Global Warming. Temps went up for ten years Global Warming, Temps Steady-Dropping for ten years? To short a time line.... Don’t attempt to use facts or logic to persuade the devout that their religion is wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #93 November 19, 2012 Quote Don’t attempt to use facts or logic to persuade the devout that their religion is wrong. Irony score is over 9000! lol Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #94 November 19, 2012 QuoteQuoteWhich data set is the guy using? It's been 28 years since a below normal month? Is that by the old data set or the new data set effective Sept. 2012 http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/GHCNM-v3.2.0-FAQ.pdf New, according to the image. Blues, Dave Right. Now, a couple of questions: (1) How does this data compare to v3.1.0? That is, does this new data cause a greater period of time (does it adjust any new data upward?) (2) Having found a data set for monthly deviation from normal ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat it shows November, 2000 as a "below" anomaly. Sure, it's only 12 years, but it's a lot different from 28 years. It also shows a "below" in Oct., 1994, sept. and Nov. 1993, Jul - Nov. 1992, as "below normal" - which kinda blows a hole in the "28 years of no months below normal" thing - departures from 1901-2000 averages. The "combined monthly" shows the last negative as Feb. 1985. And the ocean temperature shows no negative abnormality since September, 1976. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat I'd like to see the v3.1.0 dataset to note the changes of it. fundamentally, the "28 years" may be something new. Just three months ago it could have been "six months from the last below normal abnormality." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #95 November 19, 2012 QuoteQuote Don’t attempt to use facts or logic to persuade the devout that their religion is wrong. Irony score is over 9000! lol Blues, Dave Man-made global warming is an earth-worshiping religion. The essential feature of any religion is that its pronouncements are to be accepted on faith, as opposed to hard evidence. And as with most religions, it is susceptible to the earthly temptations of money, power, politics, arrogance, and deceit. Global warmists have an unshakable faith that man-made carbon emissions will produce a hotter climate, causing natural disasters. Their insistence that we can be absolutely certain that this will come to pass is based not on science, but on faith. All the trappings of religion are here: • Original sin: Mankind is responsible for the prophesied disasters, especially those of us who live in suburbs and drive our SUVs to strip malls and chain restaurants. • The need for atonement and repentance: We must impose a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system, which will raise the cost of everything and stunt economic growth. • Rituals: We must observe Earth Day, and we must recycle. • Indulgences: Private jet-fliers like Al Gore and sitcom heiress Laurie David can buy carbon offsets to compensate for their carbon-emitting sins. • Prophecy and faith in things unseen: Advocates say we must act now before it is too late. "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed - and hence clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." Global warmists cannot produce believable or sustainable hobgoblins with science, so they must turn to religion. Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/the_religion_of_global_warming.html#ixzz2ChcGVSTX Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/the_religion_of_global_warming.html#ixzz2ChatDi9L Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #96 November 19, 2012 Quote(2) Having found a data set for monthly deviation from normal ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat it shows November, 2000 as a "below" anomaly. Sure, it's only 12 years, but it's a lot different from 28 years. That's land only, i.e. limited to about 30% of the globe. It's still worth pointing out, but I don't think anyone's talking about "land warming", unless we're moving into a discussion about urban heat islands. QuoteI'd like to see the v3.1.0 dataset to note the changes of it. fundamentally, the "28 years" may be something new. Just three months ago it could have been "six months from the last below normal abnormality." August was the first month calculated using the new data set. July used 3.1.0 and includes the paragraph: QuoteThe average global temperature across land and oceans during July 2012 was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.4°F) and ranked as the fourth warmest July since records began in 1880. The previous three months—April, May, and June—also ranked among the top five warmest for their respective months. July 2012 marks the 36th consecutive July and 329th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last below-average July temperature was July 1976 and the last below-average temperature for any month was February 1985. It was the second warmest July in the Northern Hemisphere, behind only the record warmth of 2010. The Southern Hemisphere had its 13th warmest July on record. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #97 November 19, 2012 Speaking of a lack of facts or logic. In the post I was responding to, you were denying that warming is occuring at all. In follow up, you reference a political version of the National Enquirer that relies heavily on the writing of Fred Singer, the guy who also thinks second-hand smoke is perfectly health stuff. But now that I know you read that rag, your vehement opposition to anything remotely sustainable makes more sense. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #98 November 19, 2012 From NOAA: •The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for January–October 2012 was the eighth warmest such period on record. You look at that and see global warming, I look at the same information and conclude that on seven different occasions it has been warmer during the same time period. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #99 November 19, 2012 Looks like the artical was not writen by Fred Singer, but by W.A. Beatty. Nice juke though. "Dr. Beatty earned a Ph.D. in quantitative management and statistics from Florida State University. He was a professor of quantitative management specializing in using statistics to assist/support decision-making." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #100 November 19, 2012 Quote From NOAA: •The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for January–October 2012 was the eighth warmest such period on record. You look at that and see global warming, I look at the same information and conclude that on seven different occasions it has been warmer during the same time period. Which is pretty much how GeorgiaDon characterized your position, that "if it has ever, in the history of earth been warmer, than the status quo is fine, and anyone who says otherwise is a brainwashed nutcase." Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
