billvon 3,132
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
rushmc 23
Quote>I'd say that trillions of quantum measurements have been made over the course of
>the past hundred years.
317 a second! Even back in the 1920's! Them's some fast experimenters.
>Sure. Good thing we can measure the temperature, give a location and a date and
>time of the measurement. And we can put all those together and over the last fifteen
>years or so see that the trend is flat.
Yep, And we can put it together over the past 150 years and see it is not flat at all; there is a strong signal.
150 years
Wow
That is one hell of a sample when compared to the age of the earth
But I guess we can only see this in the context of our RECORDED time on this planet?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
brenthutch 444
Yep, And we can put it together over the past 150 years and see it is not flat at all; there is a strong signal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you elaborate on that point? A 150 year long, "strong signal"? Are you telling me that the warming trend predates the industrial revolution, and thus is not attributable to anthropomorphic forcings?
kallend 2,182
QuoteYep, And we can put it together over the past 150 years and see it is not flat at all; there is a strong signal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you elaborate on that point? A 150 year long, "strong signal"? Are you telling me that the warming trend predates the industrial revolution, and thus is not attributable to anthropomorphic forcings?
Thanks for letting us know that your knowledge of history is as bad as your knowledge of science.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteYep, And we can put it together over the past 150 years and see it is not flat at all; there is a strong signal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you elaborate on that point? A 150 year long, "strong signal"? Are you telling me that the warming trend predates the industrial revolution, and thus is not attributable to anthropomorphic forcings?
Thanks for letting us know that your knowledge of history is as bad as your knowledge of science.
Always so much content
And we know YOU think you are much the expert
Well, there is a definition of an expert that fits your posts
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
[Reply]317 a second! Even back in the 1920's! Them's some fast experimenters.
Seeing as how just the LHC measured a half a billion collisions per second for a period of years, (that's a trillion every half hour or so) I'm pretty comfortable with the "trillions" of measuremebts per secons number.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
kallend 2,182
QuoteQuoteQuoteYep, And we can put it together over the past 150 years and see it is not flat at all; there is a strong signal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you elaborate on that point? A 150 year long, "strong signal"? Are you telling me that the warming trend predates the industrial revolution, and thus is not attributable to anthropomorphic forcings?
Thanks for letting us know that your knowledge of history is as bad as your knowledge of science.
Always so much content
And we know YOU think you are much the expert
Well, there is a definition of an expert that fits your posts
You don't have to be an expert to know when the industrial revolution started. All that's necessary is not to be an ignoramus.
You're welcome!
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
brenthutch 444
More from government climate experts. From NSIDC
"Antarctic sea ice remained extensive due to an unusual northward excursion of ice in the Weddell Sea. December of 2012 saw Northern Hemisphere snow cover at a record high extent, while January 2013 is the sixth-highest snow cover extent on record since 1967."
Yep looks like we are all going to melt.
"Antarctic sea ice remained extensive due to an unusual northward excursion of ice in the Weddell Sea. December of 2012 saw Northern Hemisphere snow cover at a record high extent, while January 2013 is the sixth-highest snow cover extent on record since 1967."
Yep looks like we are all going to melt.
billvon 3,132
Here are the parts from that report you left out.
"Arctic sea ice extent for January 2013 was well below average, largely due to extensive open water in the Barents Sea and near Svalbard. "
"As has been the case throughout this winter, ice extent in the Atlantic sector of the Arctic Ocean remained far below average. "
"Average Arctic sea ice extent for January 2013 was the sixth lowest for the month in the satellite record. Through 2013, the linear rate of decline for January ice extent is -3.2 percent per decade relative to the 1979 to 2000 average."
"In recent years, the surface of the Greenland Ice Sheet has experienced strong melting, but the 2012 melt season far exceeded all previous years of satellite monitoring, and led to significant amounts of ice loss for the year."
Were you hoping no one checked?
"Arctic sea ice extent for January 2013 was well below average, largely due to extensive open water in the Barents Sea and near Svalbard. "
"As has been the case throughout this winter, ice extent in the Atlantic sector of the Arctic Ocean remained far below average. "
"Average Arctic sea ice extent for January 2013 was the sixth lowest for the month in the satellite record. Through 2013, the linear rate of decline for January ice extent is -3.2 percent per decade relative to the 1979 to 2000 average."
"In recent years, the surface of the Greenland Ice Sheet has experienced strong melting, but the 2012 melt season far exceeded all previous years of satellite monitoring, and led to significant amounts of ice loss for the year."
Were you hoping no one checked?
brenthutch 444
No, as usual I was counting on it.
billvon 3,132
>No, as usual I was counting on it.
Good! Another denier talking point sinks quietly beneath the waves.
Good! Another denier talking point sinks quietly beneath the waves.
Which is signal and which is noise? The signals and/or noise
Why is Arctic sea ice more important to the earth's albedo than Antarctic sea ice?
Why is the Greenland ice sheet more important than the Antarctic?
Why do the alarmists cherry pick as much as the deniers?
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Why is Arctic sea ice more important to the earth's albedo than Antarctic sea ice?
Why is the Greenland ice sheet more important than the Antarctic?
Why do the alarmists cherry pick as much as the deniers?
My wife is hotter than your wife.
brenthutch 444
I am growing weary of punching down. Nosh on this for a while.
http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.5268
Granting that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, there is little evidence that man's CO2 emissions are the dominant force in global temperature. For the last 17 years, CO2 has risen but temperature has remained flat, which suggests that some other influence is stronger than CO2. Also, "too much" warming is a judgment call -- there is no scientific basis for how much is too much. Sea level isn't rising any faster than it used to.
In 2008, Britian’s Met Office noted a 10-year pause, or sharp slowing, in the warming trend and asked this question in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’ annual State of the Climate:
Do global temperature trends over the last decade falsify climate predictions?
No, it decided. Global warming models wouldn’t be clearly wrong until the pause lasted 15 years:
Observations indicate that global temperature rise has slowed in the last decade… The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_models_are_broken_by_the_standards_warmists_set/#119995
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/014024
An analysis of NASA satellite data shows that water vapor, the most important greenhouse gas, has declined in the upper atmosphere causing a cooling effect that is 16 times greater than the warming effect from man-made greenhouse gas emissions during the period 1990 to 2001.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/06/nasa-satellite-data-shows-a-decline-in-water-vapor/
http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.5268
Granting that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, there is little evidence that man's CO2 emissions are the dominant force in global temperature. For the last 17 years, CO2 has risen but temperature has remained flat, which suggests that some other influence is stronger than CO2. Also, "too much" warming is a judgment call -- there is no scientific basis for how much is too much. Sea level isn't rising any faster than it used to.
In 2008, Britian’s Met Office noted a 10-year pause, or sharp slowing, in the warming trend and asked this question in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’ annual State of the Climate:
Do global temperature trends over the last decade falsify climate predictions?
No, it decided. Global warming models wouldn’t be clearly wrong until the pause lasted 15 years:
Observations indicate that global temperature rise has slowed in the last decade… The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_models_are_broken_by_the_standards_warmists_set/#119995
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/014024
An analysis of NASA satellite data shows that water vapor, the most important greenhouse gas, has declined in the upper atmosphere causing a cooling effect that is 16 times greater than the warming effect from man-made greenhouse gas emissions during the period 1990 to 2001.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/06/nasa-satellite-data-shows-a-decline-in-water-vapor/
kallend 2,182
www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
brenthutch 444
Quote
From the abstract
"Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values"
So we are no warmer than we have been in the past, which confirms what I have been saying all along, thanks for the assist.
Here is some more.
"New data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are continuing to rise but global temperatures are not following suit. The new data undercut assertions that atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing a global warming crisis."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/03/06/as-carbon-dioxide-levels-continue-to-rise-global-temperatures-are-not-following-suit/
kallend 2,182
QuoteQuote
From the abstract
"Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values"
So we are no warmer than we have been in the past, which confirms what I have been saying all along, thanks for the assist.
Here is some more.
Nice cherry you managed to pick there. Of course it's irrelevant but the best you can find.
How about a definitive source on CO2 levels (rather than an opinion piece in Forbes
from a well know denier).
www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
sfzombie 3
this is what i would expect to happen, given that the orbit and tilt of the earth should be plunging us into an ice age, thanks to global warming, it is staying the same, after warming initially. sounds to me like the earth is holding stable due to opposing forces. one is trying to get colder naturally, the other is artificially warming. when i say common sense, i am of course applying experimental (by me) means to deduce that when something is getting colder, adding a slight heat source will keep the temperature relatively unchanged.
http://kitswv.com
kallend 2,182
Just for you, Mr. Shill:
www.politico.com/story/2013/03/film-targets-climate-change-deniers-88629.html?hp=r7
www.politico.com/story/2013/03/film-targets-climate-change-deniers-88629.html?hp=r7
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rushmc 23
you bitch about bias sites and then you post a politico link???
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
kallend 2,182
Quoteyou bitch about bias sites and then you post a politico link???
Sauce for the goose.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
brenthutch 444
All hyperbole aside, the case for AGW has completely collapsed. No warming, no increase of droughts, floods, wild fires, tornados, polar bear deaths, no ANYTHING. The very people who were accusing others of “denial” have in turn become denialists. Under normal circumstances, I would gracefully provide a way out for these misguided, hapless, slack jawed, cousin fuc**rs’ however they lack the intellect to comprehend anything other than a ball peen hammer.
sfzombie 3
wow. has common sense completely escaped you? what part of not having an ice age now do you not understand? personally, i kind of like not living on an ice sheet, but hey, that's just me.
http://kitswv.com
kallend 2,182
Whatever planet you are living on, it doesn't appear to be Earth.
www.sciencerecorder.com/news/scientists-earth-is-warmer-today-than-any-time-in-the-past-11300-years/
www.sciencerecorder.com/news/scientists-earth-is-warmer-today-than-any-time-in-the-past-11300-years/
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
brenthutch 444
How many inches of global warming do you have there in the windy city?
>the past hundred years.
317 a second! Even back in the 1920's! Them's some fast experimenters.
>Sure. Good thing we can measure the temperature, give a location and a date and
>time of the measurement. And we can put all those together and over the last fifteen
>years or so see that the trend is flat.
Yep, And we can put it together over the past 150 years and see it is not flat at all; there is a strong signal.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites