January 2014 was actually a record warm month globally despite all the hysteria over it being cold in some parts of the United States and Canada: Source.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 03-07-2014).]
United States Defense Department / Pentagon: "The impacts of climate change may increase the frequency, scale, and complexity of future missions, including defense support to civil authorities, while at the same time undermining the capacity of our domestic installations to support training activities." Source.
Just because you CALL it irony doesn't make it true. And you can't say it isn't evidence just because you DISAGRRE with it. That's why your posts FAIL.
fierobear, this 'debate' aside, I think it's really embarrassing for the Fiero community that you have not apologized for advocating murder to further your political agenda.
fierobear, this 'debate' aside, I think it's really embarrassing for the Fiero community that you have not apologized for advocating murder to further your political agenda.
Only in your narrow mind can you not distinguish between punishing CRIMINALS for advocating the fleecing of billions of dollars for essentially NOTHING - taxing air - and a major newspaper advocating the KILLING of people because they don't agree with global warming. It is YOU who are an embarrassment to the Fiero community, both for this and your constant insults in this thread.
I will no longer respond to you. You are a gross waste of my time.
2,628 Record Cold Temps vs 165 Record Warm temps in last 7 days alone 5,836 Record Cold Temps vs 1,995 record warm temps in last 30 days 58,177 Record Cold Temps vs 47,330 record warm temps in last 360 days 9,286 Record Cold temps vs 4,779 record warm temps since January 1st. New paper shows climate modelers don't even know whether clouds cause warming or cooling
A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research Solid Earth finds the high Asian mountain inner Tibet Plateau glaciers are gaining remarkable quantities of ice mass. According to the authors, there is a "remarkable positive signal (+30 Gigatons/yr) in the inner Tibet Plateau, which is challenging to explain" and almost completely offsets loss of 35Gt/yr elsewhere in the region.
The authors explain a 5-year cycle found in other Asian high mountain glacier mass as due to the natural "influence of Arctic Oscillation and El Niño-Southern Oscillation."
Evaluation of Glacier Changes in High Mountain Asia Based on 10-year GRACE-RL05 Models Shuang Yi*, Wenke Sun
In this paper, 10 years of time-variable gravity data from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) Release 05 have been used to evaluate the glacier melting rate in High Mountain Asia (HMA) using a new computing scheme, i.e., the Space Domain Inverse (SADI) method. We find that in HMA area there are three different kinds of signal sources that should be treated together. The two generally accepted sources, glacier melting and India underground water depletion, are estimated to change at the rate of -35.0 ± 5.8 Gt/yr (0.09 mm/yr sea level rising) and -30.6 ± 5.0 Gt/yr, respectively. The third source is the remarkable positive signal (+30 Gt/yr) in the inner Tibet Plateau, which is challenging to explain. Further, we have found that there is a five-year undulation in Pamir and Karakoram, which can explain the controversies of the previous studies on the glacier melting rate here. This five-year signal can be explained by the influence of Arctic Oscillation and El Niño-Southern Oscillation.
Only in your narrow mind can you not distinguish between punishing CRIMINALS for advocating the fleecing of billions of dollars for essentially NOTHING - taxing air - and a major newspaper advocating the KILLING of people because they don't agree with global warming. It is YOU who are an embarrassment to the Fiero community, both for this and your constant insults in this thread.
Climate scientists are criminals because...they are studying the climate? And therefore should be punished?
The scientists aren't advocating the "fleecing of billions" from taxpayers, that would be the politicians. Again you fail to separate the science from the politics.
quote
I will no longer respond to you. You are a gross waste of my time.
That's not a very effective way to win a debate.
By the way, you asked for proof in your previous post directed at me. Remember this?
quote
As for a contextual error on the scientists quotes, show us the missing context. Present your evidence. The burden of proof for your argument is on YOU, not me.
Are you ignoring what I posted (again)? The fact that your so-called warming pause is a cherry picked extreme scenario? And the fact that your sources have no credibility because they repeatedly post garbage?
A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research Solid Earth finds the high Asian mountain inner Tibet Plateau glaciers are gaining remarkable quantities of ice mass. According to the authors, there is a "remarkable positive signal (+30 Gigatons/yr) in the inner Tibet Plateau, which is challenging to explain" and almost completely offsets loss of 35Gt/yr elsewhere in the region.
Again, out of context and misleading.
The conclusion is...there is still 5 Gt/year ice mass loss in the region, despite local gains in the Tibet Plateau.
Yes, GLOBAL warming, not continental United States warming. The fact that the US had a cold winter means nothing when, globally, 2013 was still the hottest year on record.
And again, this so-called warming "pause" is a cherry picked extreme scenario. Pick ANY other starting year, except for 1998, and you get long term warming trends. You are using this one year which is a clear outlier.
Yes, GLOBAL warming, not continental United States warming. The fact that the US had a cold winter means nothing when, globally, 2013 was still the hottest year on record.
And again, this so-called warming "pause" is a cherry picked extreme scenario. Pick ANY other starting year, except for 1998, and you get long term warming trends. You are using this one year which is a clear outlier.
Oddly, this sounds like your saying that the U.S. climate record and Global climate records are some how separate issues and only related when the subject of responsibility arises. But I'm sure that is not what you are saying.
[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 03-09-2014).]
The point I was trying to make is that GLOBAL temperatures are still rising year-over-year, despite relatively cold temperatures in the continental US.
Saying AGW is a hoax because "it's cold outside" locally is pretty bad judgement.
when I tracked the 1998 data graph vs the 2004 data graph, I showed there were differences in the two sets of data caused by data manipulation.
Surprisingly though, the data showed no upward temperature pattern. There was lots of oscillation and extremes both high and low but no net increase
In Canada this winter, the Province of Manitoba has documented that the ground frost is 2 meters deep vs. the normal of 1 meter. This is causing pipes to freeze and break. The ice pack in the Arctic circle is still 50% higher than last year which is within the standard deviation instead of falling.
In short these sets of data do not back up the AGW proponents
when I tracked the 1998 data graph vs the 2004 data graph...
...Surprisingly though, the data showed no upward temperature pattern. There was lots of oscillation and extremes both high and low but no net increase
Repeating what I said earlier on the page: "And again, this so-called warming "pause" is a cherry picked extreme scenario. Pick ANY other starting year, except for 1998, and you get long term warming trends. You are using this one year which is a clear outlier."
Try using any other year for your starting point and see what the trends look like.
quote
In Canada this winter, the Province of Manitoba has documented that the ground frost is 2 meters deep vs. the normal of 1 meter. This is causing pipes to freeze and break. The ice pack in the Arctic circle is still 50% higher than last year which is within the standard deviation instead of falling.
In short these sets of data do not back up the AGW proponents
The "sea ice extent" (which ignores volume and is therefore a dubious measure) of the Arctic is almost 2 standard deviations below normal, even after this so-called recovery.
Repeating what I said earlier: "Saying AGW is a hoax because "it's cold outside" locally is pretty bad judgement."
Yes, its cold in the continental US and Canada. That doesn't change the fact that 2013 was still the hottest year on record globally.
[This message has been edited by masospaghetti (edited 03-10-2014).]
The planet is not in danger of catastrophic man made global warming. Even if we burn all the world's recoverable fossil fuels it will still only result in a temperature rise of less than 1.2 degrees C. So say The Right Climate Stuff Research Team, a group of retired NASA Apollo scientists and engineers - the men who put Neil Armstrong on the moon - in a new report. "It's an embarrassment to those of us who put NASA's name on the map to have people like James Hansen popping off about global warming," says the project's leader Hal Doiron. Doiron was one of 40 ex NASA employees - including seven astronauts - who wrote in April 2012 to NASA administrator Charles Bolden protesting about the organization's promotion of climate change alarmism, notably via its resident environmental activist James Hansen. During his stint as head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Hansen tirelessly promoted Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. He retired last year to spend more time on environmental campaigning and has twice been arrested with former mermaid impersonator Darryl Hannah for his part in protests against surface coal mining and the Keystone XL pipe line. While still head of NASA GISS he once described trains carrying coal as "death trains" "no less gruesome than if they were carrying boxcars headed to crematoria and loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species." Many NASA employees and former employees found his views an embarrassment. Doiron and his team now hope to set the record straight in a report called Bounding GHG Climate Sensitivity For Use In Regulatory Decisions. Using calculations by George Stegemeier of the National Academy of Engineering, they estimated the total quantity of recoverable oil, gas and coal on the planet. They then used 163 years of real world temperature data to calculate Transient Climate Sensitivity (ie how much the world will warm as a result of the burning of all the carbon dioxide in the fossil fuel). The figure they came up with 1.2 degrees C which is considerably lower than the wilder claims of the IPCC, whose reports have suggested it could be as high as 4 degrees C or more. This is because, as scientists such as the Cato Institute's Pat Michaels have long argued, "climate sensitivity" (ie how the planet's temperature responds to CO2 emissions) is considerably lower than the IPCC's computer models project. So much so that it should be called "climate insensitivity", he believes. Doiron is similarly sceptical of the computer models used by climate alarmists. He and his team argue that the 105 models currently used by the IPCC are seriously flawed because they don't agree with each other and don't agree with empirical data. There is no empirical data indicating Anthropogenic Global Warming will produce catastrophic climate changes. AGW can only produce modest global warming, likely to be beneficial when CO2 benefits to crop production are considered. Doiron says: "I believe in computer models. My whole career was about using computer models to make life or death decisions. In 1963 I had to use them to calculate whether, when the lunar module landed on a 12 degree slope it would fall over or not - and design the landing gear accordingly. But if you can't validate the models - and the IPCC can't - then don't use them to make critical decisions about the economy and the planet's future."
Originally posted by fierobear: ...They then used 163 years of real world temperature data to calculate Transient Climate Sensitivity (ie how much the world will warm as a result of the burning of all the carbon dioxide in the fossil fuel). The figure they came up with 1.2 degrees C which is considerably lower than the wilder claims of the IPCC, whose reports have suggested it could be as high as 4 degrees C or more.
So you agree that CO2 causes global warming? It's a start!
As for a contextual error on the scientists quotes, show us the missing context. Present your evidence. The burden of proof for your argument is on YOU, not me.
It's bad form to challenge someone to present evidence and then ignore them.
Using calculations by George Stegemeier of the National Academy of Engineering, they estimated ...
I bet they also "used calculations" by Isaac Newton and Sadi Carnot, too.
Not only were the sources cited poltical rather than scientific, but note the subtle deception in the passage quoted. The National Academy of Engineering (a prestigious institution, to be sure) neither participated in, contributed to, nor has endorsed this "report;" rather, the author[s] only "used" unpublished work by Stegemeier ("... of our TRCS research team ...") to "estimate" the desired result. Stegemeier, who is described an as "energy evangelist" on the University of Missouri of Science and Technology web site, formerly had close ties to the U.S. petroleum industry as Chairman and CEO of Unocal/Chevron.
Note also that there is no indication that this "report" was ever submitted to peer review and/or published in any credible scientific journal. It's interesting (and highly irregular) that only one of the claimed "40 ex NASA employee" participants is actually named as author of the "report." It might reasonably be classified as a very detailed and comprehensive blog.
NASA has about 18,000 employees, plus up to 70,000 contractors (2012 data), so there must be at least that many NASA retirees. Let's see ... 25 (accepting the number of "team" participants claimed in the report itself) out of at least 20,000 NASA retirees calculates to about 0.13 %. [sarcasm] An overwhelming consensus indeed! [/sarcasm] Note also that the Heartland Institute is front and center among the supporters of this "report," and Harold Doiron (the principal [only?] author) was a featured speaker at a 2012 denial-a-thon, the Heartland Institute's final "International Conference on Climate Change," which was sponsored primarily by Exxon/Mobil, the arch-conservative Koch brothers, and the conservative activist Sarah Scaife Foundation. Finally, it is worth noting that Doiron worked in the U.S. petroleum industry (Reed Tool Company) after retiring from NASA, a possible conflict of interest that is not disclosed anywhere in the "report."
Edit: Here is the official position [2011] of the National Academies on the subject of Global Warming/Climate Change:
"The new report [America's Climate Choices] reaffirms that the preponderance of scientific evidence points to human activities -- especially the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere -- as the most likely cause for most of the global warming that has occurred over the last several decades. This trend cannot be explained by natural factors such as internal climate variability or changes in incoming energy from the sun. The report adds that the impacts of climate change on human and natural systems can generally be expected to intensify with warming."
No Marvin, you don't understand. These guys have our best interests at heart. Those evil climate scientists, though, should be thrown in JAIL. After all, it sure is cold outside!
The real question is, will fierobear respond? This is great example of why his sources have no credibility.
Originally posted by fierobear: Only in your narrow mind can you not distinguish between [unapologetic politically motivated murder] and a [cartoon].
Wow.
I really expected you to say you misspoke or something. Any rational person would feel guilty about a lust for murder. Especially after criticizing someone else for the same sin.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: It is YOU who are an embarrassment to the Fiero community, both for this and your constant insults in this thread.
If one bothers to read the unfiltered raw data, not smoothed or recalculated or massaged, the picture is very different.
From 1880 to 1910 the temperatures were below normal, but a fraction of a degree on average
From 1921 to 1959 they were a fraction of a degree above normal, on average
From 1962 to 1979 they were a fraction of a degree below normal, on average
From 1980 to 1999 they were a fraction of a degree above normal, on average.
Since then it has averaged a fraction of one degree above normal, and been swinging back and forth.
In short, since the industrial revolution, we have no pattern of consistent global warming. We have no pattern consistent with the increase of CO2 which has occurred. While CO2 goes up due largely to population increase, we see in the past 3 years, the global temperature actually decline.
Any assertions to the contrary are errant and contrived to realize a political agenda.
The warmist alarm cries are now totally unproven with data that shows it simply has not happened as forecast.
We still have a huge political machine driving America into the ground. We still have many people hornswaggled into believing a lie.
If one bothers to read the unfiltered raw data, not smoothed or recalculated or massaged, the picture is very different.
If someone uses "unfiltered raw data" that doesn't suit your political agenda, you (and those you parrot) dismiss the entire data set as "fatally flawed." If subsequent scientific analysis of that data incorporates adjustments due to legitimate criticism, fully disclosing the nature of those adjustments, you (and those you parrot) dismiss it as "smoothed, recalculated, massaged," or simply "falsified." Arn, you can't have it both ways, and you don't get to make up your own rules as you go along.
quote
... since the industrial revolution, we have no pattern of consistent global warming. We have no pattern consistent with the increase of CO2 which has occurred. While CO2 goes up due largely to population increase, we see in the past 3 years, the global temperature actually decline.
Any assertions to the contrary are errant and contrived to realize a political agenda.
The warmist alarm cries are now totally unproven with data that shows it simply has not happened as forecast. ... Now I'm off to shovel snow.
Says the man who has attempted to disparage the technical credentials of others posting in this thread but has refused to provide any of his own ... the man who has repeatedly demonstrated that he doesn't understand the relationship between degrees Celsius and degrees Kelvin, the difference between median and mean, the meaning of standard deviation, the difference between weather and climate, the difference between local and global, the difference between temperature and heat, the difference between ice area and ice volume, etc.
Arn ... repeat after me:
Weather is not climate.
Local is not global.
Winter is not summer.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 03-12-2014).]
OK Marvin, I'll bite. Who are you and what are your technical credentials?
For at least the third time, Arn ... you posted the original challenge, not I, and it was directed at someone else:
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: [Addressing FlyinFieros:] You also claim to be some sort of authority of your own creation and I have yet to see your qualifications
Time to man up; you go first.
Edit: In the meantime, if you can tear yourself away from denier web sites for a while and apply your legendary (in your own mind) research skills you will find that several of the technical papers I have presented before the American Meteorological Society and NOAA/National Weather Service can still be found on-line.
quote
BTW I do understand Celcius and Kelvin
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT:
You have to make up your mind if what you are showing [i.e. temperature difference] is Kelvin or Celcius.
Hint (repeated): The magnitude of a degree Celsius is, by definition, identical to the magnitude of a degree Kelvin. Thus temperature differences expressed in either unit are identical.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 03-14-2014).]
After all this argument, you still don't get it ... or stubbornly refuse to acknowledge it. A temperature difference expressed in degrees Celsius is identical to the same temperature difference expressed in Kelvins (a.k.a. degrees Kelvin) ... which, in case you've forgotten, was the original context: https://www.fiero.nl/forum/F...057033-97.html#p3851.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 03-12-2014).]
After all this argument, you still don't get it ... or stubbornly refuse to acknowledge it. A temperature difference expressed in degrees Celsius is identical to the same temperature difference expressed in Kelvins (a.k.a. degrees Kelvin) ... which, in case you've forgotten, was the original context: 
