Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

@okie,

It is not "politically driven." It's the findings of most scientists who agree on the results. You are really, really, stupid!

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Looking hindsight at science doesn't prove what is being articulated today by all scientists. You must know what "science" means; it corrects itself when new and verifiable information out-dates old information.

Are you familiar with the term "batting average" and how that might apply to us gambling many billions of dollars that SOME are right this time ?

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

It is not "politically driven."

If a politician wants to spend public money, can you explain to me how it is NOT politically driven ? However it starts, it is now politically driven. Careers are at stake.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Here is more info. in regard to a climate station survey conducted in the United States, which shows that about 85% of the climate monitor stations may be subject to an error of between one and five degrees Centigrade. And this survey is only a beginning. We do not yet have a good handle on the potential accuracy of other stations around the world. Given the global warming crisis is said to be resulting from less than 1 degree Centigrade so far, I would think we have a problem here, ci, don't you?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/25/over-500-ushcn-stations-now-surveyed/

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/surfacestations_ushcn_crnmap.png?w=640

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/crn-rating-502.png?w=640

1 Reply

@okie,

The problem okie is you rely on one small thing you think undermines the overwhelming science while ignoring the mountain of things that support it.

If the temperature stations are off then why do satellite readings show warming?
If the temperature stations are off then why does recorded ice out occur earlier?
If the temperature stations are off then why do migratory birds stay north longer?
If the temperature stations are off then why are warm weather species moving farther north?
It the temperature stations are off then why is the growing season longer?
If the temperature stations are off then why is the fire season worse in the western US? (earlier snow melt leads to drier summers)
If the temperature stations are off then...... the list goes on and on okie.

But in reality okie.. If the warming is found by finding the change in readings and not in the readings themselves then why would the error be in one direction for all those weather stations?

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

If the temperature stations are off then why do satellite readings show warming?

Any idea how long satellites have been around ? Long enough to measure a significant amount of time to get a true trend ? 1,000 yrs perhaps ?

Quote:

If the temperature stations are off then why does recorded ice out occur earlier?

What is an Ice Out ???

Quote:

If the temperature stations are off then why do migratory birds stay north longer?

Are you saying you have the brain of a bird ? Post the evidence.

Quote:

It the temperature stations are off then why is the growing season longer?

It isnt. Post the evidence.

Quote:

If the temperature stations are off then why is the fire season worse in the western US? (earlier snow melt leads to drier summers)

??????Why do you continually make a fool of yourself with no shame at all ??? Increased wet leads to more fuel which leads to more fires. Drier summers is only good for ONE fire and one fire only. The Sahara used to be wet and now its dry....any fire warnings released for the Sahara that you know of ?

Quote:

If the temperature stations are off then...... the list goes on and on okie.

No it doesnt but your prattle certainly does.

Quote:

If the warming is found by finding the change in readings and not in the readings themselves then why would the error be in one direction for all those weather stations?

Why use weather stations at all, het Parody ??? Why not use a random number generator, there is the same 50-50% chance of it getting hotter.

0 Replies

Good posts Ionus.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

If the temperature stations are off then why do satellite readings show warming?

Most of your questions are easy to refute, and I will cite this one as an example. To be accurate, satellite readings
do not necessarily prove a warming trend. See the following graph, which shows that the trend for the Mid Troposphere
is not necessarily in any distinct direction. In fact, December 2011 shows only 0.01 degree C above the mean
for the past 32 years. One hundreth of one degree is hardly significant statistically, parados.

http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe-m.png

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

In fact, December 2011 shows only 0.01 degree C above the mean
for the past 32 years. One hundreth of one degree is hardly significant statistically, parados.

Cherry picking one data point isn't statistics okie. Statistics show the increase in temperature is about .13 per decade on that chart.

I hope you realize that surface thermometers don't measure the midtroposphere.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
In fact, December 2011 shows only 0.01 degree C above the mean
for the past 32 years. One hundreth of one degree is hardly significant statistically, parados.
Cherry picking one data point isn't statistics okie. Statistics show the increase in temperature is about .13 per decade on that chart.

How did you determine that, parados, by eyeballing the chart, or did you compute all of the data? As a math teacher would request, show your work.

Quote:

I hope you realize that surface thermometers don't measure the midtroposphere.

You seem a little dense, parados. Have you forgotten your own argument that satellite measurements show global warming? That is why I posted the above information, but now you seem to want to run for the tall grass again and hide behind an argument of surface thermometers. Have you forgotten that I posted evidence that many surface measurement stations are flawed?

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

I hope you realize that surface thermometers don't measure the midtroposphere.

Is that an obscure reference to how satellites cited by the Global Warming Politicians have estimated air temp by measuring the surface temp of the oceans ? One of the main pieces of evidence used by them ? How much of the earth's surface is water ? That's an easy one for you.

EDIT : Just read okies post

0 Replies

"Record Low Arctic Sea Ice Extent for January" (NASA: Earth Observatory)..
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=49132&src=eoa-iotd

When I saw a part of the sea surface of the southern side of the Bering Strait on Jan 16 of this year, I could tell the sea from the land at a glance from the height of 33,000 feet. The sea surface seemed to be covered with many thin ice plates.

1 Reply

@satt fs,

Quote:

I could tell the sea from the land at a glance from the height of 33,000 feet. The sea surface seemed to be covered with many thin ice plates.

That is normal.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Really?

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

How did you determine that, parados, by eyeballing the chart, or did you compute all of the data? As a math teacher would request, show your work.

Unable to look at the data in the chart even when your chart has a link on it? Simply plug the data into an excel spreadsheet and chart the results.

Quote:

You seem a little dense, parados. Have you forgotten your own argument that satellite measurements show global warming? That is why I posted the above information, but now you seem to want to run for the tall grass again and hide behind an argument of surface thermometers.

1. Your data shows warming (in spite of your attempt to cherry pick one data point.)
2. Your data is from satellites.
3. Your data doesn't refute anything about surface temperatures since it is in the midtroposphere.

Satellite data showing .142 decadal increase
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.4

0 Replies

@satt fs,

The arctic ice has totally melted away many times before. It usually is not there at all. It is the vestiges of an Ice Age that we are coming out of. It is common to see through ice from such a height esp sea ice.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

The arctic ice has totally melted away many times before. It usually is not there at all. It is the vestiges of an Ice Age that we are coming out of. It is common to see through ice from such a height esp sea ice.

But I could not identify the sea surface of the arctic ocean, this time, near the northern border of Canada and it seemed to be covered with thick snow. It is far more north than the Bering strait.
And yes, I do know that ice in the arctic region melts in the summer season.

1 Reply

@satt fs,

Quote:

I do know that ice in the arctic region melts in the summer season.

Perhaps you misunderstand. The polar Ice sheet is rarely there. Most of the world's history it doesnt exist. It only exists during Ice Ages. It has ceased to exist several times during the span of the existence of the Polar Bear alone.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

I knew that arctic ice was "pack ice" but that it was not an ice sheet. Simply I thought that it was covered with thick snow and that the sea surface would not be descernable in winter. This time, I was very strongly impressed that the sea area just south of the Bering strait was not like that.

1 Reply

@satt fs,

Melting ice is usually transparent. I understand many people are worried about Global Warming, and that is not their fault. But really, isnt it rather arrogant to assume we can control the weather, let alone the climate ?

Look at the things that control the climate : The sun goes through cycles that create hot and cold climates here on earth. The solar system moves up and down in the arm of the galaxy as it rotates around the centre. This exposes us to more and less impacts. Continents move around and create mountains and ocean currents. They move at the pace that your finger nails grow, and if you arent looking at the same time frame you aint got zip. Water moisture is the number one factor in heat retention in the atmosphere. When they first did climactic modeling to prove Global Warming, they left moisture out...too hard. The least of all the Global Warming causes is CO2. Why would they pick out CO2 ? Because it is the only one that will also stop man's accelerated use of resources, which is what they really want.

El Nino would not exist with different continent positions and it has a huge effect on weather. No weather event can affect climate, it is climate that affects weather. Weather varies enormously. We are currently in some of the mildest weather ever, probably due to the stabilising influence of coming out of an Ice Age...in other words going from cold to hot seems to add stability. Once we get hot, it will be a different story. We have not yet seen wild weather.

You may have witnessed to some degree the permanent melting of the Polar Ice. But it has gone before. It will come back. What we do will be irrelevant.

1 Reply

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know