hottest summer on record

[Keith7]

So it's officially the hottest summer on record.. I thought global warming wasn't real though?? I mean it did snow last winter!

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by Keith7
So it's officially the hottest summer on record.. I thought global warming wasn't real though?? I mean it did snow last winter! http://i949.photobucket.com/albums/ad340/LEDad_01/gif/tumblr_l66z0qynRO1qa7e35.gifWe were all wrong... now we are gonna die!!!:eek: :eek:

[sinfan75]

I thought it was hotter last year.

[zebrablue2]

Originally posted by Keith7
So it's officially the hottest summer on record.. I thought global warming wasn't real though?? I mean it did snow last winter!



the devil is turning up the heat? they are still sking in whistler canada!! maybe u should take a flight??? to canada that is.:D

[DDBooger]

It's been 104 and 105 in Oklahoma. Hope there aren't Tornados when those cold fronts blow through :cool:

[waterboy]

Definitely haven't seen any new records set this year around here. As a matter of fact, save the last couple of weeks, this has been the mildest summer I've seen in a while.:thinking:

[bwdlionfan]

It's hot, but it doesn't 'feel' like the hottest to me. I think the worst one I've lived through was in 2005 (I think, maybe 06). Then again I was working a job where a lot of times I got off between 3 and 4 so I was always steaming by the time I'd get to the car.

[Pick6]

80-81 had like 23 or so 100 degree days in a row. we've had what 6 this year?

[LE Dad]

Typical Texas summer... Typical sky is falling thread.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[jdawg2012]

Originally posted by Keith7
So it's officially the hottest summer on record.. I thought global warming wasn't real though?? I mean it did snow last winter!

Maybe its all of the season's getting harsher and most people are just ignoring the colder than usual weather in the winter and focusing on the heat in the summer.

[waterboy]

Originally posted by LE Dad
Typical Texas summer... Typical sky is falling thread.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Yep. It's been a typical Texas summer as far as I'm concerned, too. I think some people on here may have some money invested in "green" products.:D

[mwrams]

You youngsters don't know nothing! This is not even close!!!! 1980...Mineral Wells 52 straight days over 100... hit 116, 115, 110, 113, 114, over 108 10 times that summer!

[IHStangFan]

"global warming"? I think you meant "climate change". Yeah...it's been happening for 4-5 billion years. Stay tuned.

[Keith7]

Here are some good reads for those who doubt me on this being the hottest year on record:

http://www.thestate.com/2010/08/02/1400288/summer-2010-heading-for-hot-record.html

http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/blogs/news/chiefeditor/2010/07/russia-burns-in-worst-heat-wave.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38263788/ns/us_news-environment

http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/15/noaa-june-record-temperatures/

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=220&sid=2003804

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/16/noaa-2010-hottest-year-on_n_614699.html

[Pmoney]

well since Laredo broke the record for most days in a row over 100 deg.(79) last summer, I would say it was the hottest...or when Dallas had 42 days in a row in 1980...so until that happens it is not in my opinion

[Keith7]

I forgot that Texans consider the world to be the area between the Red River and the Rio Grande :doh:

Does this being the hottest summer on record mean anything? Maybe, maybe not.. This is more a shot at those who love when it snows so they can get on here and talk about how global warming isn't real because it snowed (though it didn't stick) in their neck of the woods.

[sinfan75]

Well one thing summer ain't over with yet so how can they say it's the hottest on record?

[bowleghorses]

I don't know why it's so hot,hell froze over cause the Saints won the Superbowl.:D

[garciap77]

Originally posted by Keith7
So it's officially the hottest summer on record.. I thought global warming wasn't real though?? I mean it did snow last winter!

:eek: :eek: :eek:

[Twirling Time]

I still remember 2000 when I walked out of a pizza place on Labor Day and it was 112 in Dallas.

Here this year it's just another hot summer. But when it gets to 100 in Boston, that's a little gross.

[Old Tiger]

Originally posted by Pick6
80-81 had like 23 or so 100 degree days in a row. we've had what 6 this year? Wasn't there 60+ days of 100 degree weather last summer?

[Rabid Cougar]

This summer? ....... Not even close.

[BuckeyeNut]

Originally posted by LE Dad
Typical Texas summer... Typical sky is falling thread.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

We got hit hard yesterday with lighting and 5in of rain was a nice change. Boys got out to practice yesterday in full pads in the cool weather. :cool: :cool:

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by Black Flag
We got hit hard yesterday with lighting and 5in of rain was a nice change. Boys got out to practice yesterday in full pads in the cool weather. :cool: :cool: Yeah, it poured down in town, but missed my house completely. It did cool it off nicely.:D

[Aesculus gilmus]

The reason Texans are never going to recognize the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that we are tied very closely to the fossil fuel sources of energy and will be for some decades to come. Even so, this state has made more advances in so-called "green" energy, e.g., wind power, than practically any other state.

But that's why you'll never see anyone on here saying we should tax carbon, for instance, much less go through the cap-and-trade shenanigans (which seems to be just another way to enable Goldman Sachs to make a killing rigging the markets). It would literally destroy the livelihoods of thousands of Texans. So this is self-interest playing out.

It really irks people such as Thomas Friedman of The New York Times because he is fixated on the Arabs and how to deprive them of revenue and he thinks forcing the green economy will do that. However, Texans and Arabs are allied against him on this one.

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by Aesculus gilmus
The reason Texans are never going to recognize the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that we are tied very closely to the fossil fuel sources of energy and will be for some decades to come. Even so, this state has made more advances in so-called "green" energy, e.g., wind power, than practically any other state.

But that's why you'll never see anyone on here saying we should tax carbon, for instance, much less go through the cap-and-trade shenanigans (which seems to be just another way to enable Goldman Sachs to make a killing rigging the markets). It would literally destroy the livelihoods of thousands of Texans. So this is self-interest playing out.

It really irks people such as Thomas Friedman of The New York Times because he is fixated on the Arabs and how to deprive them of revenue and he thinks forcing the green economy will do that. However, Texans and Arabs are allied against him on this one.

Release your 2nd Chakra! Ptooey :rolleyes:

[Aesculus gilmus]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
Release your 2nd Chakra! Ptooey :rolleyes:

I am saying the opposite of what Al Gore would be saying. I am saying that fossil fuels have WON the debate. The economy trumps the ecology, particularly in times of economic depression. And, make no mistake, this IS a depression and will last for at least a decade. There is no way to vote yourself out of it. Depressions just happen like clockwork every 80 years or so, sometimes more often than that. Politicians can try to alleviate the suffering caused by them, but they can't do all that much and it's wrong to "hope" they can "change" anything.

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Keith7
Here are some good reads for those who doubt me on this being the hottest year on record:

http://www.thestate.com/2010/08/02/1400288/summer-2010-heading-for-hot-record.html

http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/blogs/news/chiefeditor/2010/07/russia-burns-in-worst-heat-wave.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38263788/ns/us_news-environment

http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/15/noaa-june-record-temperatures/

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=220&sid=2003804

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/16/noaa-2010-hottest-year-on_n_614699.html

Guess you guys missed this

[Keith7]

Originally posted by sinfan75
Well one thing summer ain't over with yet so how can they say it's the hottest on record?

Are you expecting it to freeze next week or something??

[87 TIGER]

This summer has not been that hot, this week has been hot but thats it.

[GreenMonster]

Global warming is a farce made up by some scientist with a government grant to study Antarctica in order to convince the government to give him another grant. Unfortunately some Congressmen jumped on the bandwagon of this new lingo and started spewing it into the media who in turn liked the way it sounded and turned it into a worldwide crisis. In reality we are still coming out of the last mini ice age or another way to describe global cooling. It runs in cycles and we are no where near the hottest summer our planet has ever had, we just don't have records that go back far enough. It is climate change that we are experiencing and that we will continue to experience until the Earth goes back into another cooling period.

[JasperDog94]

Old Scientific Method:

Create a thesis. Collect data. Test data against thesis. Confirm or revamp thesis based on data. Repeat process until thesis is proved incorrect, inconclusive or indisputable.

Modern Scientific Method:

Create a thesis. Collect only the data that agrees with your thesis. Present your thesis as indisputable fact and label anyone that disagrees with you as close-minded people who hate the Earth. Oh yeah, and come up with a way to make gobs of money based on thesis.

[sinton66]

Originally posted by GreenMonster
Global warming is a farce made up by some scientist with a government grant to study Antarctica in order to convince the government to give him another grant. Unfortunately some Congressmen jumped on the bandwagon of this new lingo and started spewing it into the media who in turn liked the way it sounded and turned it into a worldwide crisis. In reality we are still coming out of the last mini ice age or another way to describe global cooling. It runs in cycles and we are no where near the hottest summer our planet has ever had, we just don't have records that go back far enough. It is climate change that we are experiencing and that we will continue to experience until the Earth goes back into another cooling period.

It's not even the hottest summer in the last 100 years. There was a major heat wave/drought back in the fifties in Texas. Heck, out in west Texas, even mesquite trees were dying from lack of water. I'm sure some of you have heard about Lake Nasworthy outside San Angelo catching on fire.

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by Keith7
Guess you guys missed this


Guess you missed this (http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/global_warming_rip.html)

[catman]

Texas is just a hot place in the summer. Here are temps for Bangor, Maine this month---
http://www.weather.com/outlook/health/fitness/monthly/USME0017?month=0
I see no global warming there.

[Aesculus gilmus]

Originally posted by sinton66
It's not even the hottest summer in this century. There was a major heat wave/drought back in the fifties in Texas. Heck, out in west Texas, even mesquite trees were dying from lack of water. I'm sure some of you have heard about Lake Nasworthy outside San Angelo catching on fire.

You DO know this is the 21st century, I hope. There hasn't been a "fifties" yet in this century.

[sinton66]

Originally posted by Aesculus gilmus
You DO know this is the 21st century, I hope. There hasn't been a "fifties" yet in this century.

Okay, just for you, I'll change it to the last 100 years. Happy now?

[garciap77]

Originally posted by Keith7
So it's officially the hottest summer on record.. I thought global warming wasn't real though?? I mean it did snow last winter!
It's real just ask him!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd185/garciap77/arrow-1.jpg
http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd185/garciap77/al-gore-global-warming.jpg

;)

[sinton66]

Originally posted by garciap77
It's real just ask him!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd185/garciap77/arrow-1.jpg
http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd185/garciap77/al-gore-global-warming.jpg

;)

Caption for the picture: "I need more land upon which to build HUGE energy consuming mansions!!!"

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
Guess you missed this (http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/global_warming_rip.html)

Nothing like using a conservative internet publication as your only source of information.. :doh:

[IHStangFan]

Originally posted by Keith7
Guess you guys missed this Do you not remember a year or two ago this type of "propaganda" being thrown around about how 2008 or 2009 (don't remember when this all went down) was the hottest year on record....until some old farmer cracked open an almanac and said "uh...no it's not" Then that story ran for about a DAY...and that's all you heard of it. "Global Warming" is a hoax.....the planet has gone through countless warming and cooling phases in it's almost 5 billion year existance, and will continue to do so. I once read on the interwebz that the Russians had developed a "hurricane cannon" and they were test firing it at Florida a few years back....so it MUST be true/fact!! BEWARE OF GLOBAL WARMING AND HURRICANE CANNONS!!! YIKES!!! :nerd:

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by Keith7
Nothing like using a conservative internet publication as your only source of information.. :doh: All I can do is laugh as I sit and watch the third rain shower this week.:doh: :rolleyes:



:D

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by Keith7
Nothing like using a conservative internet publication as your only source of information.. :doh:

Can't argue the merits or the facts so attack the messenger right?:rolleyes:

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Keith7
So it's officially the hottest summer on record.. I thought global warming wasn't real though?? I mean it did snow last winter!

Keith, you are on the losing side of this issue. Give it up. Your side has been "massaging" the facts for years with little to prove that man is causing anything to warm up the world.

Maybe you do know this, and just want to be another thorn in the side of the downlow...:thinking: :thinking: :doh: ;)

[IHStangFan]

Originally posted by SintonFan
Keith, you are on the losing side of this issue. Give it up. Your side has been "massaging" the facts for years with little to prove that man is causing anything to warm up the world.

Maybe you do know this, and just want to be another thorn in the side of the downlow...:thinking: :thinking: :doh: ;) DING DING DING DING!!!!! :clap: "Tell him what he's won Bob!!!"

Bullseye!

[zebrablue2]

Kieth has won a whole line of----U got it---:doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh:

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
Can't argue the merits or the facts so attack the messenger right?:rolleyes:

Interesting you say that considering that is what has happened this entire thread..

All I said was it's the hottest summer on record.. The NOAA will tell you that..

But you want me to read a global warming article written by a conservative writer, on a conservative website that was created for a conservative audience to dispute it?

Give me a break.

It's funny you guys are willing to follow your congressmen like lemmings to your eventual fate. Meanwhile, the facts show otherwise but instead of considering any opposing views you blow them off and consider it as some scheme for a lab rat to get more money.

Really? I mean really?

Come on guys are you really that blind?

Fox news tells you this. Glen Beck tells you that and you guys' eyes light up like Christmas trees. No way can global warming be real, Bill O'Reilly is obviously unbiased so why would he lie to us?

It really is sad..

I feel bad for you guys. I know eventually it will come back to bite you in the butt in one way or the other. I just hope it won't hurt the majority, WHO actually know better, in the process

You guys deserve a line of these for your responses -> :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh:

[Old Cardinal]

Maybe if Al Gore gets another expensive massage, every thing will be OK on global warming....LOL
Wonder what he will invent next after all he invented the Internet? :rolleyes:

[STANG RED]

Evidently geography dictates your perspective. I’ve been in North Dakota for the last month and a half. All the folks up here talk about how mild this summer has been. They talk of always having more days in the 90s than what has been the case this summer. Since I’ve been here, I’ve seen maybe 2 days in the 90s, and only a few more than that in the 80s. Most days have been mid to high 70s for highs, and nights usually get down to the high 50s. According to all the locals up here, this is probably the coolest summer they have ever seen. And they say last winter was one of the coldest they had seen in a long time. They say snow starting falling in mid October, and they didn’t see the ground again till April, when everything finally thawed out.

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by Keith7
Interesting you say that considering that is what has happened this entire thread..

All I said was it's the hottest summer on record.. The NOAA will tell you that..

But you want me to read a global warming article written by a conservative writer, on a conservative website that was created for a conservative audience to dispute it?

Give me a break.

It's funny you guys are willing to follow your congressmen like lemmings to your eventual fate. Meanwhile, the facts show otherwise but instead of considering any opposing views you blow them off and consider it as some scheme for a lab rat to get more money.

Really? I mean really?

Come on guys are you really that blind?

Fox news tells you this. Glen Beck tells you that and you guys' eyes light up like Christmas trees. No way can global warming be real, Bill O'Reilly is obviously unbiased so why would he lie to us?

It really is sad..

I feel bad for you guys. I know eventually it will come back to bite you in the butt in one way or the other. I just hope it won't hurt the majority, WHO actually know better, in the process

You guys deserve a line of these for your responses -> :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh:


"It's not that liberals don't know things, it is just that so much of what they know isn't so."

Ronald Reagan

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
"It's not that liberals don't know things, it is just that so much of what they know isn't so."

Ronald Reagan

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."

John Stuart Mill

[shankbear]

follow that stupid, vapid Al Gore mantra, Keith7. It is not manmade climate change. It is natural climate change. That is a disproven pile of yak dookie.

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by Keith7
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."

John Stuart Mill

Well I rest my case as this statement is a perfect example of knowing something that isn't so. :cool:

[alaskacat]

You lucky guys and gals. where I am we have had 2 days that hit 70.for like an hour. Been in the 60's, and into the 40-50's at night.

At kickoff in Barrow yesterday it was 33.

Yes football has started already up here:)

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Old Scientific Method:

Create a thesis. Collect data. Test data against thesis. Confirm or revamp thesis based on data. Repeat process until thesis is proved incorrect, inconclusive or indisputable.

Modern Scientific Method:

Create a thesis. Collect only the data that agrees with your thesis. Present your thesis as indisputable fact and label anyone that disagrees with you as close-minded people who hate the Earth. Oh yeah, and come up with a way to make gobs of money based on thesis.

Very succinct message!
:clap: :clap: :clap:

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Keith7
So it's officially the hottest summer on record.. I thought global warming wasn't real though?? I mean it did snow last winter!

Oh contrer. Global warming is real. It has been warming since the holocene period for over 6000 years. It is man made global warming that is not real.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Keith7
Interesting you say that considering that is what has happened this entire thread..

All I said was it's the hottest summer on record.. The NOAA will tell you that..

But you want me to read a global warming article written by a conservative writer, on a conservative website that was created for a conservative audience to dispute it?

Give me a break.

It's funny you guys are willing to follow your congressmen like lemmings to your eventual fate. Meanwhile, the facts show otherwise but instead of considering any opposing views you blow them off and consider it as some scheme for a lab rat to get more money.

Really? I mean really?

Come on guys are you really that blind?

Fox news tells you this. Glen Beck tells you that and you guys' eyes light up like Christmas trees. No way can global warming be real, Bill O'Reilly is obviously unbiased so why would he lie to us?

It really is sad..

I feel bad for you guys. I know eventually it will come back to bite you in the butt in one way or the other. I just hope it won't hurt the majority, WHO actually know better, in the process

You guys deserve a line of these for your responses -> :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh:

By the way. the temperature data is flawed. I don't have time to post all the links and charts but basically the temp data is flawed by land use models being totally incorrect. For example, take albany NY and NY NY. for the last 160 years, albany temp data has trended downward by about half a degree whilst NYNY has gone up by about 8. Now since Global warming is global how does albany go down.
Another example is Puentos Aires. That is the closes temperature reporter to antartica and it also shows a downward trend. So since NY NY is hot and Albany is cooler it is certain that the temps in new york city are going up because it is a heat sink. Since many recording stations are in the same areas, IE cities airports and the like that shows that the data is skewed heavily upward because of bad land use data not accounting for the amount of heat sink energy in the system. The satellite data does not agree with the land data and shows significantly less warming. And it is certain that it was warmer in the last interglacial period than now.

[STANG RED]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Old Scientific Method:

Create a thesis. Collect data. Test data against thesis. Confirm or revamp thesis based on data. Repeat process until thesis is proved incorrect, inconclusive or indisputable.

Modern Scientific Method:

Create a thesis. Collect only the data that agrees with your thesis. Present your thesis as indisputable fact and label anyone that disagrees with you as close-minded people who hate the Earth. Oh yeah, and come up with a way to make gobs of money based on thesis.

Of all the brilliant statements I have ever read on this forum, this has to be the best! I nominate this for post of the year.

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by Keith7
Guess you guys missed this

Guess Keith missed this:

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/080814_sahara.htm

There's a lot more to it than just "man did it".

Ocean core samples show that the Sahara has gone from desert to green and lush about every 20,000 years due to the Earth wobble. Ah, but the "warmers" will pooh pooh this and any evidence contrary to their new religion of "Global Warming, err, Climate Change".

[shankbear]

The liberal goof balls of the manmade global warming crowd need to find another Chicken Little problem to worry about. We are actually an insignificant gnat on the elephant. They are so presumptuous and pompus. Get a life doomsayers.

[LE Dad]

http://i949.photobucket.com/albums/ad340/LEDad_01/stupid.gif:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Gobbla2001]

It sure felt hotter this June than it has in Junes past, just the opposite for July though...

Either way the fish are doing the same thing as usual, so I'm not all that concerned...

[Gobbla2001]

Hmmmm, question:

Less than two months into summer, with over a month to go, how is this already, officially, the hottest summer on record?

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by Keith7
Interesting you say that considering that is what has happened this entire thread..

All I said was it's the hottest summer on record.. The NOAA will tell you that..

But you want me to read a global warming article written by a conservative writer, on a conservative website that was created for a conservative audience to dispute it?

Give me a break.

It's funny you guys are willing to follow your congressmen like lemmings to your eventual fate. Meanwhile, the facts show otherwise but instead of considering any opposing views you blow them off and consider it as some scheme for a lab rat to get more money.

Really? I mean really?

Come on guys are you really that blind?

Fox news tells you this. Glen Beck tells you that and you guys' eyes light up like Christmas trees. No way can global warming be real, Bill O'Reilly is obviously unbiased so why would he lie to us?

It really is sad..

I feel bad for you guys. I know eventually it will come back to bite you in the butt in one way or the other. I just hope it won't hurt the majority, WHO actually know better, in the process

You guys deserve a line of these for your responses -> :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: I have no doubts that in some areas it is the hottest summer on record... in other parts it is milder... in other parts it is average... it is called El Nino or any other name you want to put to a normal weather pattern. Don't expect me to go ...http://i949.photobucket.com/albums/ad340/LEDad_01/gif/tumblr_l66z0qynRO1qa7e35.gif

about it!!!:doh: :rolleyes:

[sahen]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Old Scientific Method:

Create a thesis. Collect data. Test data against thesis. Confirm or revamp thesis based on data. Repeat process until thesis is proved incorrect, inconclusive or indisputable.

Modern Scientific Method:

Create a thesis. Collect only the data that agrees with your thesis. Present your thesis as indisputable fact and label anyone that disagrees with you as close-minded people who hate the Earth. Oh yeah, and come up with a way to make gobs of money based on thesis.

you forgot a major and probably the most important part of the original scientific method.....publish data and how you got it so that it can stand up to other scientists' tests...this is the part that the new scientific method (or we should really jsut say the global warming scientific method since 99% of other sciences still rely on the old and proven one) doesn't have...but this is mainly to blame on our culture, we want the answers NOW not after they are combed over with a fine tooth comb for 50-100 years...

in my opinion the true problems in global warming are the scientists themselves, they know the way things should work and are trying to hammer their research down everyone's throats instead of doing what every other scientist has done throughout time...this in turn pisses off other scientists that are not part of this global warming stuff and their first reaction is to be skeptical, as this is the true quality that all scientist share.....there is nothing wrong with saying that the earth is heating because of man made global warming and presenting your facts, what is wrong is classifying every skeptic as an idiot and ignoring their research that contradicts your own...the more the global warming scientists do this the more they alienate themselves from the other scientists and their works appear to be forced and falsifyed even if they are not and in turn they become even more skeptical...

once you add politicians and money to this mix then you end up with science that is as dangerous as when the church controlled science back in Galleo's day (im a christian so this isnt a knock on the church, more of a knock on anyone that tries to control science for their own benefit)....if global warming by man is wrong yet we go on and "fix" it anyway we are going to be spending a lot of needless money and potentially destroying whole economies for nothing....not to mention when their is a true scientific crisis one day we would be discrediting scientist for the forseeable future...the theory needs to be tested by scientists outside of this global warming crowd, then their tests need to be published and gone over w/ another fine tooth comb, the original theory needs to be modified as such and retested and republished...you repeat this process until there is no dissent and you finally have a scientific fact, until that time it is and always will be a theory...

[Keith7]

man talking to you guys is like talking to a brick wall.. :doh: :doh:

[sahen]

Originally posted by Keith7
man talking to you guys is like talking to a brick wall.. :doh: :doh:

you should look in a mirror...maybe the problem is it is really 2 brick walls talking to each other...

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by Keith7
man talking to you guys is like talking to a brick wall.. :doh: :doh:



You want stories:


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/nyregion/01hot.html?_r=1

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090910_summerstats.html

http://www.adn.com/2008/07/24/473786/gloomy-summer-headed-toward-infamy.html

http://sciencedude.ocregister.com/2010/08/03/summer-chill-july-one-of-coolest-on-record/107185/

http://blogs.fox11online.com/2009/09/01/12th-coolest-summer-on-record/

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2009-09-10-summer_N.htm

http://thevirtuousrepublic.com/?p=4335



You could find these stories and 1000 more just like them if you looked. Really? Who is the brink wall?

[Gobbla2001]

I'm dead serious: how can something that hasn't happened yet already be on record? I can believe it being the hottest 'so far', but officially and already on record? How is this possible?

[jdawg2012]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Old Scientific Method:

Create a thesis. Collect data. Test data against thesis. Confirm or revamp thesis based on data. Repeat process until thesis is proved incorrect, inconclusive or indisputable.

Modern Scientific Method:

Create a thesis. Collect only the data that agrees with your thesis. Present your thesis as indisputable fact and label anyone that disagrees with you as close-minded people who hate the Earth. Oh yeah, and come up with a way to make gobs of money based on thesis.


BAHAHAHAHA!!!!!:D :clap:

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
You want stories:


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/nyregion/01hot.html?_r=1

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090910_summerstats.html

http://www.adn.com/2008/07/24/473786/gloomy-summer-headed-toward-infamy.html

http://sciencedude.ocregister.com/2010/08/03/summer-chill-july-one-of-coolest-on-record/107185/

http://blogs.fox11online.com/2009/09/01/12th-coolest-summer-on-record/

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2009-09-10-summer_N.htm

http://thevirtuousrepublic.com/?p=4335



You could find these stories and 1000 more just like them if you looked. Really? Who is the brink wall?

Cool!!!! A bunch of stories from the last two or three years but none about this summer.. Way to hammer home the point :doh: :doh:

http://www.gifbin.com/bin/1232550426_worf%20face%20palm.gif

[Keith7]

fail

[BILLYFRED0000]

The real issue is they cannot reproduce their predictions or results in the lab. It is all guesswork. The only valid conclusion is the globe is warming. Most likely a natural occurrence that will reverse itself. It is proven fact that it was warmer in the twelfth century and in the last interglacial period. It is also fact that the western antarctic has been adding ice at the rate of 26 gigatons per year since 79. It is also fact that the temperature data is deeply flawed and that see levels had not changed inspite of dire predictions of the said disasters.
There is global warming of some degree but it simply is not the disaster that chicken littles let on.
Another little known fact is that the glaciers of the world represent only 6 percent of the ice. Only 79 glaciers are studied as of now and there are over 100,000 glaciers. All the glacial studies are not in agreement and we have only studied less than one tenth of a percentage point of them. Since Antartica holds 90 percent of the worlds ice and fresh water what it does is much more important in any case and it is getting thicker on the continent.

[Gobbla2001]

Team A enters game 5-0.. Team A is currently down 3 points midway through the third quarter.. Is team A 5-1 already?

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Keith7
fail

With over a month left in summer, how is this already the hottest summer 'on record'... That's all you need to answer right now...

Because I can believe hottest 'so far', but how is this summer already in the books?

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
Team A enters game 5-0.. Team A is currently down 3 points midway through the third quarter.. Is team A 5-1 already?

http://img.youtube.com/vi/SPw1FCcndUg/0.jpg

[Keith7]

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=how+does+the+sun+heat+the+earth%3F

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by Keith7
http://img.youtube.com/vi/SPw1FCcndUg/0.jpg http://i949.photobucket.com/albums/ad340/LEDad_01/emotionicons/smileyborg-tyCzep-MS7-2007.jpg


Sure... you're right everyone else is wrong.:doh: :rolleyes:

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by Keith7
Cool!!!! A bunch of stories from the last two or three years but none about this summer.. Way to hammer home the point :doh: :doh:

http://www.gifbin.com/bin/1232550426_worf%20face%20palm.gif





I wasn't aware that Global Warming has only happened since last year!!!!! I thought this scare has been going on for many years. Anyway, I only posted the first few stories in a list of 1000s. Take your pick!

[BILLYFRED0000]

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007GL032529.shtml

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v413/n6857/abs/413719a0.html

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2004GL020103.shtml

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2004GL020103.shtml

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/291/5501/112

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v1.pdf

Each of these papers are peer reviewed published papers that either indirectly or directly refute the science involved in the global warming crowds arguements. These are only a few.
My favorites of course

[sahen]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
I'm dead serious: how can something that hasn't happened yet already be on record? I can believe it being the hottest 'so far', but officially and already on record? How is this possible?

it cant be officially on the record yet...my guess (without researching it) is that so far it has been the hottest summer on record and the people that do the research are expecting it to continue and are confident enough to make the claim....obviously if a freak northern blew in and cooled the whole northern hemisphere to a high of 85 or 80 everyday at the points closest to the equator then it would skew the data and not be the hottest summer on record...

as a scientist i would ask a couple questions:
1. Which Record is it considered the hottest of? For example, if there are multiple temperature agencies is it only the hottest for one of them or is it the hottest for all of them or what?
2. In relation to man-made global warming how old is the record and is that old enough to prove man's envolvement vs. other climate phenomenons.
3. What other climate phenomenons can cause this heating and is their evidence that they are going on right now? (ex. El-nino, La-nino, etc)
4. Where is the data being taken from that the readings that are used for this data?
4a. Are these datapoints consistant as the ones used for past readings or if they have changed datapoints why are they considred as good or better than past datapoints?
4b. If any datapoints have been thrown out that were used in past readings then we need to know why.
4c. Are there enough datapoints taken to establish this as a worldwide trend as the hottest summer ever or is it more of a local trend?
4d. Are the datapoints currently giving a true representation of temperature in the region they are monitoring? (the area around the data collection point hasn't changed to the point that it is no longer giving accurate data...this would be a valid answer to 4b)

thats off the top of my head, but normally these are questions that should have been asked by the scientist reporting the data before it is ever published...if one of the questions do not have an obvious answer for them to make a claim it should be explained with the claim....sometimes this does happen and the media neglects to report the qualifying data along with the claim or in some instances the scientist did not thing of the question when researching...as these are basic im sure they were all considered...

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I wasn't aware that Global Warming has only happened since last year!!!!! I thought this scare has been going on for many years. Anyway, I only posted the first few stories in a list of 1000s. Take your pick!

This thread is about this being the hottest summer on record thus far and how I can use that to "prove global warming is real" just like when it snows people can use that to "prove global warming is fake"..

We've had discussions in the past about global warming and I've shut you guys up using a mix scientific studies and common sense too many times. I don't want to go down that road again..

The fact that you guys have gotten so worked up about all this really shows how insecure you all are.. I guess that all goes back to who you guys follow.. When you rely on Glen Beck's gut feeling rather than thousands of scientist, you really have to look over your shoulder at all times..

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007GL032529.shtml

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v413/n6857/abs/413719a0.html

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2004GL020103.shtml

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2004GL020103.shtml

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/291/5501/112

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v1.pdf

Each of these papers are peer reviewed published papers that either indirectly or directly refute the science involved in the global warming crowds arguements. These are only a few.
My favorites of course

I will warn you that last article is a little phsyics heavy. NOt for the average reader.

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by Keith7
This thread is about this being the hottest summer on record thus far and how I can use that to "prove global warming is real" just like when it snows people can use that to "prove global warming is fake"..

We've had discussions in the past about global warming and I've shut you guys up using a mix scientific studies and common sense too many times. I don't want to go down that road again..

The fact that you guys have gotten so worked up about all this really shows how insecure you all are.. I guess that all goes back to who you guys follow.. When you rely on Glen Beck's gut feeling rather than thousands of scientist, you really have to look over your shoulder at all times.. http://i949.photobucket.com/albums/ad340/LEDad_01/emotionicons/sheep.gif

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by Keith7
This thread is about this being the hottest summer on record thus far and how I can use that to "prove global warming is real" just like when it snows people can use that to "prove global warming is fake"..

We've had discussions in the past about global warming and I've shut you guys up using a mix scientific studies and common sense too many times. I don't want to go down that road again..

The fact that you guys have gotten so worked up about all this really shows how insecure you all are.. I guess that all goes back to who you guys follow.. When you rely on Glen Beck's gut feeling rather than thousands of scientist, you really have to look over your shoulder at all times..

[Keith7]

Originally posted by LE Dad
http://i949.photobucket.com/albums/ad340/LEDad_01/emotionicons/sheep.gif

Is that a picture of you watching Fox News??

[garciap77]

Originally posted by shankbear
The liberal goof balls of the manmade global warming crowd need to find another Chicken Little problem to worry about. We are actually an insignificant gnat on the elephant. They are so presumptuous and pompus. Get a life doomsayers.
.................................................. ..... http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd185/garciap77/hottest-April-and-hottest-year-on-record1.jpg
http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd185/garciap77/chicken-little-sky-falling.jpg

;)

[garciap77]

Originally posted by LE Dad
http://i949.photobucket.com/albums/ad340/LEDad_01/emotionicons/sheep.gif

:D

[sahen]

Originally posted by Keith7
This thread is about this being the hottest summer on record thus far and how I can use that to "prove global warming is real" just like when it snows people can use that to "prove global warming is fake"..

We've had discussions in the past about global warming and I've shut you guys up using a mix scientific studies and common sense too many times. I don't want to go down that road again..

The fact that you guys have gotten so worked up about all this really shows how insecure you all are.. I guess that all goes back to who you guys follow.. When you rely on Glen Beck's gut feeling rather than thousands of scientist, you really have to look over your shoulder at all times..

has anyone quoted glen beck on this topic? for all you know you just entered into an argument with several climate scientist that dont agree with you as this is a somewhat anonamous message board...

[Aesculus gilmus]

The good news is that we will all be dead soon and none of this will matter.

I think this more and more often the older I get while I read endless back-and-forth arguments about unprovable scientific theories, politics, religion. etc.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Keith7
This thread is about this being the hottest summer on record thus far and how I can use that to "prove global warming is real" just like when it snows people can use that to "prove global warming is fake"..

We've had discussions in the past about global warming and I've shut you guys up using a mix scientific studies and common sense too many times. I don't want to go down that road again..

The fact that you guys have gotten so worked up about all this really shows how insecure you all are.. I guess that all goes back to who you guys follow.. When you rely on Glen Beck's gut feeling rather than thousands of scientist, you really have to look over your shoulder at all times..

Keith just read all of those peer reviewed articles and let me know what you think. There are plenty more where that came from. It proves that
it is not certified science. Just an arguement that has not been proven or disproven. Consensus is for politicians. Not science.

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by Keith7
Is that a picture of you watching Fox News?? NO, but this is.http://i949.photobucket.com/albums/ad340/LEDad_01/gif/24mhu0z1.gif


:D



.... and heres one of you everytime you see some little ray on the internet that you can twist to attempt to support your position...



http://i949.photobucket.com/albums/ad340/LEDad_01/gif/gfvgh.gif

[garciap77]

Originally posted by LE Dad
NO, but this is.http://i949.photobucket.com/albums/ad340/LEDad_01/gif/24mhu0z1.gif


:D



.... and heres one of you everytime you see some little ray on the internet that you can twist to attempt to support your position...



http://i949.photobucket.com/albums/ad340/LEDad_01/gif/gfvgh.gif

:eek: :eek: :eek:

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by garciap77
:eek: :eek: :eek:

Fly away little birdie fly away the earth is safe because Keith7 is here!!!

http://i949.photobucket.com/albums/ad340/LEDad_01/gif/rite.gif

lol!!!:D

[Maroon87]

In the Houston area, 1980 is still the standard bearer. I remember being at Astroworld one day that summer and it was 107.

[garciap77]

Originally posted by LE Dad
Fly away little birdie fly away the earth is safe because Keith7 is here!!!

http://i949.photobucket.com/albums/ad340/LEDad_01/gif/rite.gif

lol!!!:D

http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Laughing/lol-057.gif

[navscanmaster]

Originally posted by Keith7
Nothing like using a conservative internet publication as your only source of information.. :doh:

As opposed to using six liberal/progressive sources of information for your point.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by navscanmaster
As opposed to using six liberal/progressive sources of information for your point.

Or as my 6 peer reviewed scientific studies.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/20...7GL032529.shtml

http://www.nature.com/nature/journa...s/413719a0.html

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/20...4GL020103.shtml

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/20...4GL020103.shtml

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...ct/291/5501/112

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/...0707.1161v1.pdf

[44INAROW]

Originally posted by Keith7
So it's officially the hottest summer on record..


Originally posted by Keith7
This thread is about this being the hottest summer on record thus far
Therein lies the problem.. It doesn't say "thus far" in the original post. IMHO Had you said 'thus far' - it wouldn't have been such a big deal..

carry on guys :)

[BILLYFRED0000]

Eric Monnin,1* Andreas Indermühle,1 André Dällenbach,1 Jacqueline Flückiger,1 Bernhard Stauffer,1 Thomas F. Stocker,1 Dominique Raynaud,2 Jean-Marc Barnola2

A record of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration during the transition from the Last Glacial Maximum to the Holocene, obtained from the Dome Concordia, Antarctica, ice core, reveals that an increase of 76 parts per million by volume occurred over a period of 6000 years in four clearly distinguishable intervals. The close correlation between CO2 concentration and Antarctic temperature indicates that the Southern Ocean played an important role in causing the CO2 increase. However, the similarity of changes in CO2 concentration and variations of atmospheric methane concentration suggests that processes in the tropics and in the Northern Hemisphere, where the main sources for methane are located, also had substantial effects on atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

This is one of the articles. It indicates that the southern ocean had a lot to do with c02 increase and it was not necessarily due to warming. And it indicated that methane and other gases have an affect at different lattitudes etc.

[BILLYFRED0000]

During much of the Quaternary, the Earth's climate has undergone drastic changes most notably successive glacial and interglacial episodes. The past 150 kyr includes such a climatic cycle: the last interglacial, the last glacial and the present holocene interglacial. A new climatic−time series for this period has been obtained using delta18 O data from an Antarctic ice core.

------------------

References
1. Shackleton, N. J. Nature 215, 15−17 (1967). | ISI | ChemPort |
2. Shackleton, J. J. & Opdyke, N. D. Quat. Res. 3, 39−55 (1973). | ChemPort |
3. Duplessy, J. C. Climatic Change (ed. Gribbin, J.) 46−67 (Cambridge University Press, 1978).
4. Dansgaard, W., Johnsen, S. J., Moeller, J. & Langway, C. C. Science 166, 377−381 (1969). | ISI | ChemPort |
5. Epstein, S., Sharp, R. P. & Gow, A. J. Science 168, 1570−1572 (1970). | ISI |
6. Barkov, N. I., Korotkevitch, E. S., Gordienko, F. G. & Kotlyakov, V. M. IAHS Publ. 118, 312−321 (1977).
7. Lorius, C., Merlivat, L., Jouzel, J. & Pourchet, M. Nature 280, 644−648 (1979). | ISI | ChemPort |
8. Dansgaard, W. et al. Science 218, 1273−1277 (1982). | ISI |
9. Dansgaard, W. et al. Geophys. Monogr. (M. Ewing Symp., 5) 29, 288−298 (1984).
10. Lorius, C., Raynaud, D., Petit, J. R., Jouzel, J. & Merlivat, L. Annls Glaciol. 5, 88−94 (1984).
11. Paterson, N. S. B. Nature 266, 508−511 (1977). | ISI |
12. Young, N. W., Pourchet, M., Kotlyakov, V. M., Korolev, P. A. & Dyugerov, M. B. Annls Glaciol. 3, 333−338 (1982).
13. Lorius, C. et al. IAHS Publ. 86, 3−15 (1970).
14. Barkov, N. I., Antarct. J. U.S. 10, 55−56 (1975).
15. Barkov, N. I., Gordienko, F. G., Korotkevich, E. S. & Kotlyakov, V. N. Dokl. Acad. Sci. USSR 214, 1383−1386 (1974). | ChemPort |
16. Barkov, N. I., Gordienko, F. G., Korotkevich, E. S. & Kotlyakov, V. M. Inform. Bull. Soviet Antarct. Expedn 90, 39−48 (1975).
17. Gordienko, F. G., Kotlyakov, V. M., Barkov, N. I., Korotkevich, T. E. & Nikolaev, S. D. Data Glacio Stud. Acad. Sci. USSR 46, 168−171 (1983).
18. Grosvald, M. G. Data Glaciol. Stud. Acad. Sci. USSR 46, 171−174 (1983).
19. Shumskii, P. A., Korotkevich, E. S. & Larina, T. B. Inform. Bull. Soviet Antarct. Expedn. 100, 41−48 (1980).
20. Jouzel, J., Merlivat, L. & Lorius, C. Nature 289, 688−691 (1982).
21. Stauffer, B., Hofer, H., Oeschger, H., Schwander, J. & Siegenthaler, U. Annls Glaciol. 5, 160−164 (1984). | ChemPort |
22. Dansgaard, W., Barkov, N. I. & Splettstoesser, J. IAHS Publ. 118, 204−209 (1977). | ChemPort |
23. Wilson, A. T. & Hendy, C. H. J. Glaciol. 27, 95, 3−9 (1981). | ISI | ChemPort |
24. Budd, W. F. & Young, N. W. The Climatic Record in Polar Ice Sheets (ed. de Q. Robin, G. 150−176 (Cambridge University Press, 1983).
25. Robin, G. de Q. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B280, 143−148 (1977). | ISI |
26. Jouzel, J. & Merlivat, L. J. geophys. Res. 89, 11749−11758 (1984). | ChemPort |
27. Raisbeck, G. M. et al. Nature 292, 825−826 (1981). | ISI | ChemPort |
28. Yiou, F., Raisbeck, G. M., Bourles, D., Lorius, C. & Barkov, N. I. Nature (this issue).
29. Drewry, D. J. Pol. Rec. 17, 359−374 (1975).
30. Drewry, D. J. Scott Polar Research Institute Rep .(ed. Drewry, D. J.) (Scott Polar Research Institute, Cambridge, (1983).
31. Lliboutry, L. Z. Gletscherk. Glaziolgeol. 15, 135−148 (1979).
33. Bowler, J. M., Earth. Sci. Rev. 12, 279−310 (1976). | Article | ISI |
34. Robin, G. de Q. The Climatic Record in Polar Ice Sheets, (ed. de Q. Robin G.) 180−189 (Cambridge University Press, 1983).
35. Jouzel, J., Merlivat, L., Petit, J. R. & Lorius, C. J. geophys. Res. 88, 2693−2703 (1983). | ISI |
36. Joussaume, S., Jouzel, J. & Sadourny, R. Nature 311, 24−29 (1984). | Article | ISI | ChemPort |
37. Lorius, C. & Merlivat, L. IAHS Publ. 118, 127−137 (1977). | ChemPort |
38. Alley, R. B. & Whillans, I. M. J. geophys. Res. 89, 6487−6493.
39. Drewry, D. J. Nature 287, 214−216 (1980). | ISI |
40. Gates, W. L. Science 191, 1138−1144 (1976). | ISI |
41. Manabe, S. & Hahn, D. G. J. geophys. Res. 82, 3889−3911 (1977). | ISI |
42. Manabe, S. & Broccoli, A. J. Annls Glaciol. 5, 100−105 (1984).
43. Hansen, J. et al. Geophys. Monogr. 29, 130−163 (1984).
44. Raynaud, D. & Lorius, C. IAHS Publ. 118, 326−335 (1977). | ChemPort |
45. CLIMAP Project Members Quat. Res. 21, 123−224 (1984). | ISI |
46. Mix, A. C. & Ruddiman, W. F. Quat. Res. 21, 1−20 (1984). | ISI | ChemPort |
47. Imbrie, J. et al. Milankovitch and Climate Vol. 1, (eds Berger A. L. et al.) 269−305 (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1984).
48. Emiliani, C. J. Geol. 63, 538−578 (1965).
49. Shackleton, N. J. Proc. R. Soc. B174, 135−154 (1969). | ISI |
50. Bender, M., Labeyrie, L., Raynaud, D. & Lorius, C. EOS, 64, 973 (1984).
51. Hollin, J. T. Nature, 283, 629−633. | ChemPort |
52. Broecker, W. S. & Van Donk, J. Rev. Geophys. Space Phys. 8, 169−198 (1970). | ISI | ChemPort |
53. Hays, J. D., Imbrie, J. & Shackleton, N. J. Science 194, 1121−1132 (1976). | ISI |
54. Ruddiman, W. F. & McIntyre, A. Science 212, 617−627 (1981). | ISI | ChemPort |
55. Imbrie, J. & Imbrie, Z. Science 207, 943−953 (1980). | ISI |
56. Budd, W. F. & Smith, I. N. IAHS Publ. 131, 369−409 (1981).
57. Pollard, D. Nature 296, 334−338 (1981). | ISI |
58. Le Treut, H. & Ghil, M. J. geophys. Res. 88, 5167−5190 (1983). | ISI |
59. Berger, A., Contr. 37 (Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgique, 1978).
60. Broecker, W. S. Milankovitch and Climate Vol. 2 (eds Berger, A. L. et al.) 687−698 (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1984).
61. Budd, W. F. IAHS Publ. 131, 441−471 (1981).
62. Delmas, R. J., Ascensio, J. M. & Legrand, M. Nature 284, 155−157 (1980). | ISI | ChemPort |
63. Neftel, A., Oeschger, H., Schwander, R. J., Stauffer, B. & Zumbrunn, R. Nature 295, 220−223 (1982). | ISI | ChemPort |
64. Stauffer, B., Hofer, H., Oeschger, H., Schwander, J. & Siegenthaler, U. Annls Glaciol. 5, 160−164 (1984). | ChemPort |
65. Raynaud, D. & Barnola, J. M. Annls Glaciol. 5, 224 (1984).
66. Shackleton, N. J., Hall, M. A., Line, J. & Cang Shuxi Nature 306, 319−323 (1983). | ISI | ChemPort |
67. Broecker, W. S. Progr. Oceanogr. 11, 151−197 (1982). | Article | ISI |
68. Shackleton, N. J. & Pisias, N. G. Chapman Conf. on CO2 (American Geophysical Union, in the press).
69. Manabe, S. & Wetherald, R. T. J. atmos. Sci. 37, 99−118 (1980). | Article | ISI |
70. Washington, W. M. & Meehl, A. G. J. geophys. Res. 89, 9475−9503 (1984). | ISI | ChemPort |
71. Pisias, N. G. & Shackleton, N. J. Nature 30, 757−759 (1984).
72. Sarmiento, J. L. & Toggweiller, J. R. Nature 308, 621−624 (1984). | Article | ISI | ChemPort |
73. Siegenthaler, U. & Wenk, T. Nature 308, 624−626 (1984). | Article | ISI | ChemPort |
74. Knox, F. & McElroy, M. B. J geophys. Res. 89, 4629−2637 (1984). | ISI | ChemPort |
75. Broecker, W. S. & Takahashi, T. Geophys. Monogr. (M. Ewing Symp., 5) 29, 314−326 (1984).
76. Birchfield, G. E., Weertman, J. & Lunde, A. T. Quat. Res., 15, 126−142 (1981). | ISI |
77. Oerlemans, J. Nature 297, 550−553 (1982). | ISI |
78. Broecker, W. S., Peteet, D. & Rind, D. Nature 315, 21−26 (1985). | Article | ISI | ChemPort |
79. Zeller, J. E. & Parker, B. C. Geophys. Res. Lett. 8, 895−898 (1981). | ISI |
80. Legrand, M. & Delmas, R. J. Atmos Envir. 18, 1867−1874 (1984). | Article | ISI | ChemPort |
81. Palais, J. & Legrand, M. J. geophys. Res. 90, 1143−1154 (1985). | ISI | ChemPort |
82. Neftel, A., Jacob, P. & Klockow, D. Nature 311, 43−45 (1984). | Article | ISI | ChemPort |
83. Wolff, E. W. & Peel, D. A. Nature 313, 535−540 (1985). | Article | ISI | ChemPort |
84. Rasmunssen, R. A. & Khalil, M. A. J. geophys. Res. 89, 11599−11605 (1984). | ChemPort |
85. Friedl, I. H., Moor, E., Oeschger, H., Siegenthaler, U. & Stauffer, B. Geophys. Res. Lett. 11, 1145−1148 (1984). | ISI | ChemPort |

What this is saying is that there is a periodicity to the earths climate that has nothing to do with man and evolves from natural causes. Note the references and numbers. Just basic science.

[BILLYFRED0000]

News of the Week
PALEOCLIMATE:
A Variable Sun Paces Millennial Climate
Richard A. Kerr

Most scientists have viewed the sun's unvarying brightness as the one constant in the ever-changing climate system. Now, in a paper published online this week by Science (www.sciencexpress.org), paleoceanographers report that the climate of the northern North Atlantic has warmed and cooled nine times in the past 12,000 years in step with the waxing and waning of the sun. Some researchers say the data make solar variability the leading hypothesis to explain the roughly 1500-year oscillation of climate seen since the last ice age, and that the sun could also add to the greenhouse warming of the next few centuries.

[navscanmaster]

Although I learned long ago not to let Keith7 irritate me, I have to wonder if he really thinks the conservative guys on this board sit around and listen to Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Bill O'Reilly for all our news and politics. I am a conservative person, I would say. I don't watch Fox News, but I don't watch MSNBC for my news either. I try to watch the local news, not the national broadcasts, for breaking news. I then turn to the internet and research any topic I think merits more study on my part. I can usually come to a good conclusion on my own.

[BILLYFRED0000]

 As early as 1990 the Australian movie entitled \The greenhouse conspiracy" showed
that the case for the greenhouse eect rests on four pillars [114]:
36 Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner
1. the factual evidence, i.e. the climate records, that supposedly suggest that a global
warming has been observed and is exceptional;
2. the assumption that carbon dioxide is the cause of these changes;
3. the predictions of climate models that claim that a doubling of CO2 leads to a
predictable global warming;
4. the underlined physics.
In the movie these four pillars were dismantled bringing the building down. The speaker
states:
\In a recent paper on the eects of carbon dioxide, Professor Ellsaesser of
the Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, a major US research establishment in
California, concluded that a doubling of carbon dioxide would have little or
no eect on the temperature at the surface and, if anything, might cause the
surface to cool."
The reader is referred to Ellsaesser's original work [115].
 Two books by the popular German meteorologist and sociologist Wolfgang Thune, entitled
The Greenhouse Swindle (In German, 1998) [116] and Aquittal for CO2 (In German,
2002) [117] tried to demonstrate that the CO2 greenhouse eect hypothesis is pure nonsense.
 A book written by Heinz Hug entitled Those who play the trumpet of fear (In German,
2002), elucidated the history and the background of the current greenhouse business
[118]
 Another movie was shown recently on Channel 4 (UK) entitled \The great global warming
swindle" supporting the thesis that the supposed CO2 induced anthropogenic global
warming has no scientic basis [119].
 In his paper \CO2: The Greatest Scientic Scandal of Our Time" the eminent atmospheric
scientist Jaworowski made a well-founded statement [12].

[BILLYFRED0000]

The authors restrict themselves on statements that appeared after
a publication by Lee in the well-known Journal of Applied Meteorology 1973, see Ref. [121]
and references therein.
Lee's 1973 paper is a milestone. In the beginning Lee writes:
\The so-called radiation `greenhouse' eect is a misnomer. Ironically, while the
concept is useful in describing what occurs in the earth's atmosphere, it is invalid
for cryptoclimates created when space is enclosed with glass, e.g. in greenhouses
and solar energy collectors. Specically, elevated temperatures observed under
glass cannot be traced to the spectral absorbtivity of glass.
The misconception was demonstrated experimentally by R. W. Wood more than
60 years ago (Wood, 1909) [109] and recently in an analytical manner by Businger
(1963) [122]. Fleagle and Businger (1963) [123] devoted a section of their text to
the point, and suggested that radiation trapping by the earth's atmosphere should
be called `atmosphere eect' to discourage use of the misnomer. Munn (1966) [124]
reiterated that the analogy between `atmosphere' and `greenhouse' eect `is not
correct because a major factor in greenhouse climate is the protection the glass
gives against turbulent heat losses'. In one instance, Lee (1966) [125], observed
that the net
ux of radiant energy actually was diminished be pore than 10% in
a 6-mil polyvinyl enclosure.

[navscanmaster]

Although I learned long ago not to let Keith7 irritate me, I have to wonder if he really thinks the conservative guys on this board sit around and listen to Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Bill O'Reilly for all our news and politics. I am a conservative person, I would say. I don't watch Fox News, but I don't watch MSNBC for my news either. I try to watch the local news, not the national broadcasts, for breaking news. I then turn to the internet and research any topic I think merits more study on my part. I can usually come to a good conclusion on my own.

[BILLYFRED0000]

3.3.5 Atmospheric greenhouse effect after Anonymous 1 (1995)
\The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lets the radiation of the Sun, whose maximum
lies in the visible light, go through completely, while on the other hand it
absorbs a part of the heat radiation emitted by the Earth into space because of
its larger wavelength. This leads to higher near-surface air temperatures."
Disproof: The rest statement is incorrect since the obviously non-neglible infrared part of
the incoming solar radiation is being absorbed (cf. Section 2.2). The second statement is
falsified by referring to a counterexample known to every housewife: The water pot on the
stove. Without water filled in, the bottom of the pot will soon become glowing red. Water is
40 Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner
an excellent absorber of infrared radiation. However, with water filled in, the bottom of the
pot will be substantially colder. Another example would be the replacement of the vacuum
or gas by glass in the space between two panes. Conventional glass absorbs infrared radiation
pretty well, but its thermal conductivity shortcuts any thermal isolation.


3.3.6 Atmospheric greenhouse effect after Anonymous 2 (1995)
\If one raises the concentration of carbon dioxide, which absorbs the infrared light
and lets visible light go through, in the Earth's atmosphere, the ground heated
by the solar radiation and/or near-surface air will become warmer, because the
cooling of the ground is slowed down."
Disproof: It has already been shown in Section 1.1 that the heat conductivity is changed
only marginally even by doubling the CO2 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere.

[BILLYFRED0000]

3.7.8 The rotating globe
Since the time when Fourier formulated the heat conduction equation, a non-linear boundary
condition describing radiative transfer of a globe with a sun-side and a dark side has never
belonged to the family of solvable heat conduction problems, even in the case of a non-rotating
globe.
Regardless of solvability, one can write down the corresponding equations as well as their
Falsication Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Eects : : : 67
boundary conditions. If a rotating globe (Fig. 25) was exposed to radiation and only radiative
Figure 25: The rotating globe
heat transfer to its environment was possible, the initial problem of the heat conduction
equation would have to be solved with the following boundary condition
􀀀 
@T
@n
=
8<
:
T4 􀀀 S
sin # cos(' 􀀀 !dt) if 􀀀=2  ' 􀀀 !dt  =2
T4 if =2  ' 􀀀 !dt  3=2
(94)
where
@
@n
= n
r (95)
denotes the usual normal derivative at the surface of the sphere and !d the angular frequency
associated with the day-night cycle. By dening an appropriate geometry factor
(#; '; !d; t) = sin # cos(' 􀀀 !dt) (96)
and the corresponding Sun side area
A = f('; #) j (#; '; !d; t)  0g (97)
one can rewrite the expression as
􀀀 
@T
@n
=
8<
:
T4 􀀀 S
(#; '; !d; t) if ('; #) 2 A
T4 if ('; #) 62 A
(98)
3.7.9 The obliquely rotating globe
The result obtained above may be generalized to the case of an obliquely rotating globe.
68 Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Figure 26: An obliquely rotating globe
For an obliquely rotating globe (Fig. 26) one has
􀀀 
@T
@n
=
8<
:
T4 􀀀 S
(#0; #; '; !y; !d; t) if ('; #) 2 A
T4 if ('; #) 62 A
(99)
where @=@n denotes the usual normal derivative on the surface of the sphere and !y, !d the
angular frequencies with the year cycle and the day-night cycle, respectively.23 The geometry
factor now reads
(#0; #; '; !y; !d; t) = [ sin(!yt) cos(!dt) + cos(!yt) sin(!dt) cos #0] sin # cos '
+[􀀀sin(!yt) sin(!dt) + cos(!yt) cos(!dt) cos #0] sin # sin '
􀀀[ cos(!yt) sin #0 ] cos # (100)
and the expression for the sun-side surface is given by
A = f('; #) j (#0; #; '; !y; !d; t)  0g (101)
Already the rst unrealistic problem will be too much for any computer. The latter more
realistic model cannot be tackled at all. The reasons for this is not only the extremely dierent
frequencies !y and !d but also a very non-physical feature which aects the numeric as well:
According to a famous law formulated by Wiener, almost all particles in this mathematical
model which cause the diusion, move on paths at innitely high speeds [170, 171].
Rough estimates indicate that even these oversimplied problems cannot be tackled with
any computer. Taking a sphere with dimensions of the Earth it will be impossible to solve
this problem numerically even in the far future. Not only the computer would work ages,
before a \balanced" temperature distribution would be reached, but also the correct initial
temperature distributions could not be determined at all.
23Here sidereal time is used [138, 139].

Sorry the formluaic equations do not translate. but the verbage conveys the gist.

[icu812]

LMAO thanks BILLYFRED0000. Gotta go Beck is back on.

[STANG RED]

Originally posted by navscanmaster
Although I learned long ago not to let Keith7 irritate me, I have to wonder if he really thinks the conservative guys on this board sit around and listen to Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Bill O'Reilly for all our news and politics. I am a conservative person, I would say. I don't watch Fox News, but I don't watch MSNBC for my news either. I try to watch the local news, not the national broadcasts, for breaking news. I then turn to the internet and research any topic I think merits more study on my part. I can usually come to a good conclusion on my own. :iagree:

[44INAROW]

Originally posted by icu812
LMAO thanks BILLYFRED0000. Gotta go Beck is back on.

I mean no harm in this - but after looking at all the stuff BillyFred posted - it reminds me of the saying.. 'if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull$***' :D

[sinton66]

Originally posted by 44INAROW
Therein lies the problem.. It doesn't say "thus far" in the original post. IMHO Had you said 'thus far' - it wouldn't have been such a big deal..

carry on guys :)

Noticed that little change in strategy, did ya?:D

[icu812]

Originally posted by 44INAROW
I mean no harm in this - but after looking at all the stuff BillyFred posted - it reminds me of the saying.. 'if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull$***' :D

Can I be dazzled and baffled at the same time? :D

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by Keith7
Here are some good reads for those who doubt me on this being the hottest year on record:

http://www.thestate.com/2010/08/02/1400288/summer-2010-heading-for-hot-record.html

http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/blogs/news/chiefeditor/2010/07/russia-burns-in-worst-heat-wave.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38263788/ns/us_news-environment

http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/15/noaa-june-record-temperatures/

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=220&sid=2003804

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/16/noaa-2010-hottest-year-on_n_614699.html OK MR. 7 I love how you bash someones sources when you cite Huffington Post and Ms NBC. I also like the fact that if you scroll down the Ms NBC site that it blames climate change for squirrels gaining weight.:doh:

All of that aside, the data listed is redundant and comes from NCDC. If you take the time to go to the actual NCDC site you will see, without the sky is falling emphasis, that they believe that the earth is getting warmer. They also state that it is uncertan IF MAN HAS ANY EFFECT on this.

Another thing that I found interesting is that NCDC also states that they are collecting more accurate data from an ever increasing number of sources. So let me put this in simple terms for you.... Lets say one night you run to mommy and tell her you have a fever. She puts her hand on your head and says no baby you don't feel warm. A few years later you go back with same complaint, but this time mommy has invested in a mercury thermometer, she sticks it under your tounge and in a couple of minutes she tells you that you're a little warm, gives you a couple of aspirin and sends you on your way. Two year later you're back again this time Dr. Mom jerks down you're pants and inserts Mr Merc, Mrs Digital goes under the arm, and a hi tech device on the forehead along with her hand....
Her hand- still says fine
Mr. Merc- a little warm
Mrs. digital- even warmer
Hi tech- burning up
average them all together and you would have the hottest Keith7 EVER.... When in fact you would still be the same annoying punk you were the first time. :thinking:


:D

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by icu812
Can I be dazzled and baffled at the same time? :D I don't know about the BS, but most certainly agree with 44NR on the baffled part.:D

[navscanmaster]

I think Keith is out.....for now.:D

[Keith7]

Originally posted by navscanmaster
I think Keith is out.....for now.:D

Well excuse the hell out of me for having a life away from this board and not reading every thread. And NO I wont try to do better in the future. All you have to do is just not click on my threads and not responding, then you and I will get along just fine.

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by Keith7
Well excuse the hell out of me for having a life away from this board and not reading every thread. And NO I wont try to do better in the future. All you have to do is just not click on my threads and not responding, then you and I will get along just fine. Score 1 for Keith on the cut and paste!!:clap: :clap:






:D

[bobcat4life]

this thread gives me a headache

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by bobcat4life
this thread gives me a headache Better watchout for Mr. Mercury.:eek: :eek:





:D

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by 44INAROW
I mean no harm in this - but after looking at all the stuff BillyFred posted - it reminds me of the saying.. 'if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull$***' :D

Well it does take a little science background and a good understanding of the arguments that are regularly used to justify the "greenhouse effect" which in itself is a misnomer. But Keith got it.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Falsication Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects : : : 91
5 Physicist's Summary
A thorough discussion of the planetary heat transfer problem in the framework of theoretical
physics and engineering thermodynamics leads to the following results:
1. There are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses
and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effect, which explains the relevant physical
phenomena. The terms \greenhouse effect" and \greenhouse gases" are deliberate misnomers.
2. There are no calculations to determinate an average surface temperature of a planet
 with or without atmosphere,
 with or without rotation,
 with or without infrared light absorbing gases.
The frequently mentioned difference of 33 C for the fictitious greenhouse effect of the
atmosphere is therefore a meaningless number.
3. Any radiation balance for the average radiant
flux is completely irrelevant for the determination
of the ground level air temperatures and thus for the average value as well.
4. Average temperature values cannot be identified with the fourth root of average values
of the absolute temperature's fourth power.
5. Radiation and heat
flows do not determine the temperature distributions and their
average values.
6. Re-emission is not re
flection and can in no way heat up the ground-level air against the
actual heat
ow without mechanical work.
7. The temperature rises in the climate model computations are made plausible by a
perpetuum mobile of the second kind. This is possible by setting the heat conductivity
in the atmospheric models to zero, an unphysical assumption. It would be no longer
a perpetuum mobile of the second kind, if the \average" fictitious radiation balance,
which has no physical justication anyway, was given up.
8. After Schack 1972 water vapor is responsible for most of the absorption of the infrared
radiation in the Earth's atmosphere. The wavelength of the part of radiation, which is
absorbed by carbon dioxide is only a small part of the full infrared spectrum and does
not change considerably by raising its partial pressure.

[BILLYFRED0000]

9. Infrared absorption does not imply \backwarming". Rather it may lead to a drop of
the temperature of the illuminated surface.
10. In radiation transport models with the assumption of local thermal equilibrium, it is
assumed that the absorbed radiation is transformed into the thermal movement of all
gas molecules. There is no increased selective re-emission of infrared radiation at the
low temperatures of the Earth's atmosphere.
11. In climate models, planetary or astrophysical mechanisms are not accounted for properly.
The time dependency of the gravity acceleration by the Moon and the Sun (high
tide and low tide) and the local geographic situation, which is important for the local
climate, cannot be taken into account.
12. Detection and attribution studies, predictions from computer models in chaotic systems,
and the concept of scenario analysis lie outside the framework of exact sciences, in
particular theoretical physics.
13. The choice of an appropriate discretization method and the denition of appropriate
dynamical constraints (
ux control) having become a part of computer modelling is
nothing but another form of data curve tting. The mathematical physicist v. Neumann
once said to his young collaborators: \If you allow me four free parameters I can build a
mathematical model that describes exactly everything that an elephant can do. If you
allow me a fth free parameter, the model I build will forecast that the elephant will

y." (cf. Ref. [185].)
14. Higher derivative operators (e.g. the Laplacian) can never be represented on grids with
wide meshes. Therefore a description of heat conduction in global computer models is
impossible. The heat conduction equation is not and cannot properly be represented on
grids with wide meshes.
15. Computer models of higher dimensional chaotic systems, best described by non-linear
partial dierential equations (i.e. Navier-Stokes equations), fundamental dier from calculations
where perturbation theory is applicable and successive improvements of the
predictions - by raising the computing power - are possible. At best, these computer
models may be regarded as a heuristic game.
16. Climatology misinterprets unpredictability of chaos known as butter
y phenomenon as
another threat to the health of the Earth.

[BILLYFRED0000]

In other words: Already the natural greenhouse eect is a myth albeit any physical reality.
The CO2-greenhouse eect, however is a \mirage" [204]. The horror visions of a risen sea
level, melting pole caps and developing deserts in North America and in Europe are ctitious
Falsication Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Eects : : : 93
consequences of ctitious physical mechanisms as they cannot be seen even in the climate
model computations. The emergence of hurricanes and tornados cannot be predicted by
climate models, because all of these deviations are ruled out. The main strategy of modern
CO2-greenhouse gas defenders seems to hide themselves behind more and more pseudoexplanations,
which are not part of the academic education or even of the physics training.
A good example are the radiation transport calculations, which are probably not known by
many. Another example are the so-called feedback mechanisms, which are introduced to amplify
an eect which is not marginal but does not exist at all. Evidently, the defenders of the
CO2-greenhouse thesis refuse to accept any reproducible calculation as an explanation and
have resorted to unreproducible ones. A theoretical physicist must complain about a lack of
transparency here, and he also has to complain about the style of the scientic discussion,
where advocators of the greenhouse thesis claim that the discussion is closed, and others are
discrediting justied arguments as a discussion of \questions of yesterday and the day before
yesterday"25. In exact sciences, in particular in theoretical physics, the discussion is never
closed and is to be continued ad innitum, even if there are proofs of theorems available.
Regardless of the specic eld of studies a minimal basic rule should be fullled in natural
science, though, even if the scientic elds are methodically as far apart as physics and meteorology:
At least among experts, the results and conclusions should be understandable or
reproducible. And it should be strictly distinguished between a theory and a model on the one
hand, and between a model and a scenario on the other hand, as claried in the philosophy
of science.
That means that if conclusions out of computer simulations are to be more than simple
speculations, then in addition to the examination of the numerical stability and the estimation
of the eects of the many vague input parameters, at least the simplications of the physical
original equations should be critically exposed. Not the critics have to estimate the eects of
the approximation, but the scientists who do the computer simulation.
\Global warming is good : : : The net eect of a modest global warming is positive."
(Singer).26 In any case, it is extremely interesting to understand the dynamics and causes of
the long-term
uctuations of the climates. However, it was not the purpose of this paper to
get into all aspects of the climate variability debate.
The point discussed here was to answer the question, whether the supposed atmospheric
eect has a physical basis. This is not the case. In summary, there is no atmospheric
greenhouse eect, in particular CO2-greenhouse eect, in theoretical physics and engineering
thermodynamics. Thus it is illegitimate to deduce predictions which provide a consulting
solution for economics and intergovernmental policy.
25

[BILLYFRED0000]

For those of you interested in the source of the science in this paper it is as follows.


Falsication Of
The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Eects
Within The Frame Of Physics
Version 1.0 (July 7, 2007)
Gerhard Gerlich
Institut fur Mathematische Physik
Technische Universitat Carolo-Wilhelmina
Mendelssohnstrae 3
D-38106 Braunschweig
Federal Republic of Germany
g.gerlich@tu-bs.de
Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Postfach 60 27 62
D-22237 Hamburg
Federal Republic of Germany
ralfd@na-net.ornl.gov
arXiv:0707.1161v1

[Pudlugger]

"Forget it Billy, it's China Town".

from China Town sorta.

[waterboy]

:thinking: Hmmmmm........could some of these elevated temperatures be caused by radiant heat from concrete? Some of the stations that report temperatures are in metro areas....., right? I know that a place like the city of Dallas has a higher mean temperature than most of the smaller towns, even though some areas such as East Texas have a higher relative humidity. I know man as a whole is not completely environmental friendly, and need to do what they can to get away from fossil fuels (for reasons other than "climate change") if done in a slow way so that the economy can adjust, but I don't think the reasoning behind the "climate change" is a valid claim as some scientists claim. I think, and so do a high percentage of scientists, that any climate change that is going on is more from a natural phenoma than being a creation of man.;)

[BEAST]

With all this talk of "Man Made Global Warming", this though just entered my mind. I wonder when the big Ice Age started if the animals, insects, etc that where able to survive all walked around saying everything was fine until "Dinosaur Made Global Freezing" happened. After all, something had to cause it. The earth simply couldnt freeze on its own. But, if the Ice Age killed all the dinosuars, which creature was responsible for causing the earth to heat back up and thaw out? Must have been the doodle bug, of even the cock roach.




BEAST

[UPanIN]

Originally posted by Keith7
I forgot that Texans consider the world to be the area between the Red River and the Rio Grande :doh:

Does this being the hottest summer on record mean anything? Maybe, maybe not.. This is more a shot at those who love when it snows so they can get on here and talk about how global warming isn't real because it snowed (though it didn't stick) in their neck of the woods.


Texas is the

"CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE BABY"

NAVASOTA SPECIFICALLY

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by Keith7


We've had discussions in the past about global warming and I've shut you guys up using a mix scientific studies and common sense too many times..


I am having a hard time believing this!!!

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
For those of you interested in the source of the science in this paper it is as follows.


Falsication Of
The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Eects
Within The Frame Of Physics
Version 1.0 (July 7, 2007)
Gerhard Gerlich
Institut fur Mathematische Physik
Technische Universitat Carolo-Wilhelmina
Mendelssohnstrae 3
D-38106 Braunschweig
Federal Republic of Germany
g.gerlich@tu-bs.de
Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Postfach 60 27 62
D-22237 Hamburg
Federal Republic of Germany
ralfd@na-net.ornl.gov
arXiv:0707.1161v1
This article was refuted quite succcinctly
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf

Most of your stuff was copy and paste. LOL I saw no explanation aside from what you could gather from the article themselves. lol.

Not to mention the physics aspect of it is merely the understanding of generation of heat, yet it is only one variable of many other forces. Some of the links you presented were also quite dated and would be immediately looked at with suspicion by scientists. You don't find too many of them citing articles from 1995 unless you are talking theory. Even then, it would be only to challenge that theory and some of these try, but they've all fallen by the way side.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
I am having a hard time believing this!!! People never even responded to original intent. Which wasn't to prove global warming, but to ask if all that snow meant it wasn't existent, than the heat right now must mean it does exist. It was tongue and cheek more than anything else. He successfully pulled a lot of strings though. It's hilarious hearing people say it's cool where they are when discussing global climate. Yet Russia just had it's hottest winter and lost a substantial portion of it's crops this year. I guess it's good ol NIMBY.

[ctown]

I guess all those historical changes which included a green sahara, a mini ice age in the dark ages and other changes must have been the result of man made change. We are so powerful.

Maybe it was the millions and millions of buffalo running wild in north America farting out their clouds of methane that caused those climate changes. Maybe now it's just keith7's hot air multiplied across the Internet that's doing it today. Solar Maximus will burn you all to a crisp.

[Keith7]

Originally posted by DDBooger
People never even responded to original intent. Which wasn't to prove global warming, but to ask if all that snow meant it wasn't existent, than the heat right now must mean it does exist. It was tongue and cheek more than anything else. He successfully pulled a lot of strings though. It's hilarious hearing people say it's cool where they are when discussing global climate. Yet Russia just had it's hottest winter and lost a substantial portion of it's crops this year. I guess it's good ol NIMBY.

DING DING DING!!! We have a winner! finally someone gets it..

Just goes to show how insecure so many on this board really are.. :doh:
_____________________________________

Now for my next trick, I will show you how to create an LE_Dad post...

First you insert a comment you think is witty or clever (remember this post is about you, don't care what others think)

Then add a GIF at the end to make garciap77 quote it with a smiley..

So in reply to DDBooger's comment here is an LE_Dad post:

Ya like Keith7 is really that smart.. don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya

http://www.videobeta.net/gifs/10429.gif

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by Keith7
DING DING DING!!! We have a winner! finally someone gets it..

Just goes to show how insecure so many on this board really are.. :doh:
_____________________________________

Now for my next trick, I will show you how to create an LE_Dad post...

First you insert a comment you think is witty or clever (remember this post is about you, don't care what others think)

Then add a GIF at the end to make garciap77 quote it with a smiley..

So in reply to DDBooger's comment here is an LE_Dad post:

Ya like Keith7 is really that smart.. don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya

http://www.videobeta.net/gifs/10429.gif http://i949.photobucket.com/albums/ad340/LEDad_01/Rocket/dumbass-1-1.gif:D

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by DDBooger
This article was refuted quite succcinctly
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf

Most of your stuff was copy and paste. LOL I saw no explanation aside from what you could gather from the article themselves. lol.

Not to mention the physics aspect of it is merely the understanding of generation of heat, yet it is only one variable of many other forces. Some of the links you presented were also quite dated and would be immediately looked at with suspicion by scientists. You don't find too many of them citing articles from 1995 unless you are talking theory. Even then, it would be only to challenge that theory and some of these try, but they've all fallen by the way side.

that was funny. It only dealt with one section of the paper I mentioned and it did not convince me of any difference. The math presented was over simplified to the variables involved and did not deal with water vapor vs c02 and the fact that co2 does not vary much at all because of its limited bandwidth. I copied and pasted cause it is faster than explaining. I would prefer that you draw your own conclusions. The fact that you mentioned a date also proves one of the main points which is that those questions were never proven inaccurate simply ignored and show that people say oh that was from yesterday. Funny that you should prove his point for him. People like you are the fools that follow the fools. I can still do the math at 50. Can you do it too?

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
that was funny. It only dealt with one section of the paper I mentioned and it did not convince me of any difference. The math presented was over simplified to the variables involved and did not deal with water vapor vs c02 and the fact that co2 does not vary much at all because of its limited bandwidth. I copied and pasted cause it is faster than explaining. I would prefer that you draw your own conclusions. The fact that you mentioned a date also proves one of the main points which is that those questions were never proven inaccurate simply ignored and show that people say oh that was from yesterday. Funny that you should prove his point for him. People like you are the fools that follow the fools. I can still do the math at 50. Can you do it to? LOL OKay, I'm the fool.

The reason for it's simplicity in debunking your article is due to the fact of garbage in garbage out. He destroyed the key part of their theses. It was hardly over simplified but rather concentrated. Sort of like pulling the pin on a large structure It all falls on itself.

The articles have been rebutted over and over and the contrarians are under the impression if you keep saying something and having it printed in some obscure journal, some of which have been founded by donations from fossil fuel industries. It really becomes comical.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by DDBooger
LOL OKay, I'm the fool.

The reason for it's simplicity in debunking your article is due to the fact of garbage in garbage out. He destroyed the key part of their theses. It was hardly over simplified but rather concentrated. Sort of like pulling the pin on a large structure It all falls on itself.

The articles have been rebutted over and over and the contrarians are under the impression if you keep saying something and having it printed in some obscure journal, some of which have been founded by donations from fossil fuel industries. It really becomes comical.

I am going to debunk one of your comments right now. Do you work for somebody? And they pay you. So just because somebody pays you do they also think for you? Or put it another way. The guys getting the grants. Will they get grants if they say that global warming will raise the temp half of a degree in the next 100 years. Or will they get more grants saying the water levels will rise 3 feet and storms will cause billions of dollars of damage if I can have the grant to prove it> And oh what will the results be?

A study was done in the last 6 years on polling data. They sent two groups that were completely different and seperate out with the same polls to the same demographic. The groups were told that the answers would be 70 30 for in one group and 70 30 against in another. And they got the results they expected with the exact same material and demographics.
They got the results they expected to get.
A computer model is a simulation not a fact. It is a guess based on a goal to prove what they are looking for. They will get that result. IE manns hockey stick model which has been proven false. YOu could put random noise in the variables and it still gives you the hockey stick.

When a man builds a model with 4 free paramaters he can predict what an elephant can do. But give him enough free paramaters and he can predict it will fly.

[UPanIN]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
I am going to debunk one of your comments right now. Do you work for somebody? And they pay you. So just because somebody pays you do they also think for you? Or put it another way. The guys getting the grants. Will they get grants if they say that global warming will raise the temp half of a degree in the next 100 years. Or will they get more grants saying the water levels will rise 3 feet and storms will cause billions of dollars of damage if I can have the grant to prove it> And oh what will the results be?

A study was done in the last 6 years on polling data. They sent two groups that were completely different and seperate out with the same polls to the same demographic. The groups were told that the answers would be 70 30 for in one group and 70 30 against in another. And they got the results they expected with the exact same material and demographics.
They got the results they expected to get.
A computer model is a simulation not a fact. It is a guess based on a goal to prove what they are looking for. They will get that result. IE manns hockey stick model which has been proven false. YOu could put random noise in the variables and it still gives you the hockey stick.

When a man builds a model with 4 free paramaters he can predict what an elephant can do. But give him enough free paramaters and he can predict it will fly.


Nice.:clap:

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
I am having a hard time believing this!!! X2

[Keith7]

Originally posted by DDBooger
LOL OKay, I'm the fool.

The reason for it's simplicity in debunking your article is due to the fact of garbage in garbage out. He destroyed the key part of their theses. It was hardly over simplified but rather concentrated. Sort of like pulling the pin on a large structure It all falls on itself.

The articles have been rebutted over and over and the contrarians are under the impression if you keep saying something and having it printed in some obscure journal, some of which have been founded by donations from fossil fuel industries. It really becomes comical.

:clap:

[Keith7]

Originally posted by LE Dad
X2

-1

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by Keith7
-1 :D

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by LE Dad
OK MR. 7 I love how you bash someones sources when you cite Huffington Post and Ms NBC. I also like the fact that if you scroll down the Ms NBC site that it blames climate change for squirrels gaining weight.:doh:

All of that aside, the data listed is redundant and comes from NCDC. If you take the time to go to the actual NCDC site you will see, without the sky is falling emphasis, that they believe that the earth is getting warmer. They also state that it is uncertan IF MAN HAS ANY EFFECT on this.

Another thing that I found interesting is that NCDC also states that they are collecting more accurate data from an ever increasing number of sources. So let me put this in simple terms for you.... Lets say one night you run to mommy and tell her you have a fever. She puts her hand on your head and says no baby you don't feel warm. A few years later you go back with same complaint, but this time mommy has invested in a mercury thermometer, she sticks it under your tounge and in a couple of minutes she tells you that you're a little warm, gives you a couple of aspirin and sends you on your way. Two year later you're back again this time Dr. Mom jerks down you're pants and inserts Mr Merc, Mrs Digital goes under the arm, and a hi tech device on the forehead along with her hand....
Her hand- still says fine
Mr. Merc- a little warm
Mrs. digital- even warmer
Hi tech- burning up
average them all together and you would have the hottest Keith7 EVER.... When in fact you would still be the same annoying punk you were the first time. :thinking:


:D Hey Mr. 7 did you miss this ^^^^
I will put a GIF in there to help you out.http://i949.photobucket.com/albums/ad340/LEDad_01/gif/oh-yeah_koolaid.gif

There I feel cooler already.:D

[waterboy]

Originally posted by Keith7
-1
+1:p

:D

[lulu]

Originally posted by LE Dad
Hey Mr. 7 did you miss this ^^^^
I will put a GIF in there to help you out.http://i949.photobucket.com/albums/ad340/LEDad_01/gif/oh-yeah_koolaid.gif

There I feel cooler already.:D

Get him DAD.:D

[ctown]

Imagine back in the day when glaciers extended all the way down into the heart of the where the US is today. I have no doubt keith7's primordial precursor was visibly agitated at all the other homos---homo sapiens that is--- who were playin with that damn flint...

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by ctown
Imagine back in the day when glaciers extended all the way down into the heart of the where the US is today. I have no doubt keith7's primordial precursor was visibly agitated at all the other homos---homo sapiens that is--- who were playin with that damn flint... Lol, in the report that Keith cites it discusses the fact that the Antartic ice is expanding at a record rate.:thinking: :D

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by LE Dad
Lol, in the report that Keith cites it discusses the fact that the Antartic ice is expanding at a record rate.:thinking: :D

Since 1979 the western Antarctic has been adding ice at the rate of 26 gigatons per year. Per year. Puentos Aires the closest reporting weather station shows a temperature drop of 2 degrees in the last 140 years.

[icu812]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Since 1979 the western Antarctic has been adding ice at the rate of 26 gigatons per year. Per year. Puentos Aires the closest reporting weather station shows a temperature drop of 2 degrees in the last 140 years.

Holy smokes, we better do something about that. :D


lulu, this is off topic but how is Spring Hill looking this year? They gonna be improved? Looks like they are comming back to Van again this year.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
I am going to debunk one of your comments right now. Do you work for somebody? And they pay you. So just because somebody pays you do they also think for you? Or put it another way. That anecdote is a debunking? haha Nevermind that those being paid to refute the science are doing so in hopes of preserving their business. Please, stop with the useless strawmen.


Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
The guys getting the grants. Will they get grants if they say that global warming will raise the temp half of a degree in the next 100 years. Actually yes, aforementioned Roy Spencer UofAlabama-Huntsville, a skeptic (though he's reversed himself now on whether the planet is cooling and now agrees that it is warming) not only gets federal funding but has access to his own satelite. OOPS!!!



Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Or will they get more grants saying the water levels will rise 3 feet and storms will cause billions of dollars of damage if I can have the grant to prove it> And oh what will the results be? They'll get those grants because they've been justified. lol Certainly not in many of the pseudo-science journals you list or some of the renegade scientists gripping on to long held beliefs that simply scientists have tired of debunking. As I said, in the political corridor, if you say something over and over again, someone will get it, cite and claim it for the truth (Imhofe).


Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
A study was done in the last 6 years on polling data. They sent two groups that were completely different and seperate out with the same polls to the same demographic. The groups were told that the answers would be 70 30 for in one group and 70 30 against in another. And they got the results they expected with the exact same material and demographics.
They got the results they expected to get. Another anecdote. lol



Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
A computer model is a simulation not a fact. It is a guess based on a goal to prove what they are looking for. They will get that result. IE manns hockey stick model which has been proven false. YOu could put random noise in the variables and it still gives you the hockey stick. Yes, though it is anything but a guess, it is formulaic, much like stock derivatives, game theory, chaos theory and other theoretical suppositions that operate on input. Nobody goes in thinking they know what they'll get. If anything, they've found they've far underestimated the effect.


Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
When a man builds a model with 4 free paramaters he can predict what an elephant can do. But give him enough free paramaters and he can predict it will fly. Or they can take what they want to hear and call that the truth and get political and economic backing from powerful resources and just claim it's false. lol

[waterboy]

Originally posted by icu812
Holy smokes, we better do something about that. :D


lulu, this is off topic but how is Spring Hill looking this year? They gonna be improved? Looks like they are comming back to Van again this year.
I can answer that one for you. I think they will be better this year, but they may still be a year or two away from being a contender. I think the new coach, Bill Poe, will get them headed in the right direction if the fans and faculty are patient enough. It's just that they are in a killer district where it'll be very tough to get a win.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Since 1979 the western Antarctic has been adding ice at the rate of 26 gigatons per year. Per year. Puentos Aires the closest reporting weather station shows a temperature drop of 2 degrees in the last 140 years.
There are two distinct problems with this argument.

First, any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to disprove a global trend is dead in the water. Anthropogenic global warming theory does not predict uniform warming throughout the globe. We need to assess the balance of the evidence.

In the case of this particular region, there is actually very little data about the changes in the ice sheets. The growth in the East Antarctic ice sheet indicated by some evidence is so small, and the evidence itself so uncertain, the sheet may well be shrinking.

But even this weak piece of evidence may no longer be current. Some recent results from NASA's GRACE experiment, measuring the gravitational pull of the massive Antarctic ice sheets, have indicated that on the whole, ice mass is being lost.

Second, ice-sheet thickening is not inconsistent with warming! Warmer climates tend toward more precipitation. The Antarctic is one of the most extreme deserts on the planet. As it warms, we would expect it to receive more snow. But even a whopping warming of 20 degrees say, from -50 degrees C to -30 degrees C would still leave it below freezing, so the snow wouldn't melt. Thus, an increase in ice mass.

While on the subject of ice sheets: Greenland is also growing ice in the center, for the same reasons described above. But it is melting on the exterior regions, on the whole losing approximately 200 km3 of ice annually, doubled from just a decade ago. This is a huge amount compared to changes in the Antarctic around three orders of magnitude larger. So in terms of sea-level rise, any potential mitigation due to East Antarctic Ice Sheet growth is wiped out many times over by Greenland's melting.

[BleedOrange]

I can't wait to read this thread. I can only assume those on the side of the global warming argument have been discussing the phony science with the Al Gore camp. LOL. Can't wait for President Odumba to get the cap and trade rammed down our throats. Keep stealing from me .... I love it.

[lulu]

Originally posted by icu812
Holy smokes, we better do something about that. :D


lulu, this is off topic but how is Spring Hill looking this year? They gonna be improved? Looks like they are comming back to Van again this year.

Haven't seen them yet. I hear they are really liking their new coach and that the attitude is more positive than ever in the recent past.
We will run a new defense and a new offense I am told.
Will get to see them Saturday against Mt.Pleasant.
We have 26 seniors and a total of 44 on varsity.....the total I'm not positive about but the senior numbers are correct.
Our seniors are all back together on one team to put the team back together thAt went undefeated in 7th and 8th grade. Not thAt that means anything but makes for good team
unity.
Our QB will be the same as last year and we will have some different guys on the OL.
The district we are in will be brutal but the team has a winning attitude and that's a positive. We are definitely the underdogs and the smallest school in our district.
I think they will play hard ....as usual. We shall see.

I'm looking forward to coming to your beautiful new facility again.
:) :)

[lulu]

Originally posted by waterboy
I can answer that one for you. I think they will be better this year, but they may still be a year or two away from being a contender. I think the new coach, Bill Poe, will get them headed in the right direction if the fans and faculty are patient enough. It's just that they are in a killer district where it'll be very tough to get a win.

What you talking bout? You know we're killers already.
Hey W'boy..the guys and the parents love the new guy. He has really won their respect. Too bad we did not get him sooner. We have lots of talent that could have made a difference with his coaching.

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by DDBooger
There are two distinct problems with this argument.

First, any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to disprove a global trend is dead in the water. Anthropogenic global warming theory does not predict uniform warming throughout the globe. We need to assess the balance of the evidence.
Think that was just a statement and not an argument and if they put more monitoring equipment in Antartica that would cool the average temp and harm the hotest summer crap. lol


Originally posted by DDBooger
.Second, ice-sheet thickening is not inconsistent with warming! Warmer climates tend toward more precipitation. The Antarctic is one of the most extreme deserts on the planet. As it warms, we would expect it to receive more snow. But even a whopping warming of 20 degrees say, from -50 degrees C to -30 degrees C would still leave it below freezing, so the snow wouldn't melt. Thus, an increase in ice mass. I think the report actually says the Antartic has cooled not warmed. lol

Originally posted by DDBooger
While on the subject of ice sheets: Greenland is also growing ice in the center, for the same reasons described above. But it is melting on the exterior regions, on the whole losing approximately 200 km3 of ice annually, doubled from just a decade ago. This is a huge amount compared to changes in the Antarctic around three orders of magnitude larger. So in terms of sea-level rise, any potential mitigation due to East Antarctic Ice Sheet growth is wiped out many times over by Greenland's melting. Which can all be summed up by natural causes... just for arguments sake.:D

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by LE Dad
Think that was just a statement and not an argument and if they put more monitoring equipment in Antartica that would cool the average temp and harm the hotest summer crap. lolYou're wandering here lol


Originally posted by LE Dad
I think the report actually says the Antartic has cooled not warmed. lol
Which can all be summed up by natural causes... just for arguments sake.:D
Actually it is warming on the outer edges. As was mentioned earlier, it's thickening in the interior is not inconsistent and is even happening in Greenland. Yet the edges are indeed warming. Especially the areas radiating away from the center such as the large Peninsula of Antarctica.
http://www.nerc-bas.ac.uk/public/icd/gjma/trends2004.col.pdf

Absolutely natural causes, natural reactions to anthropomorphic inducement.

[Keith7]

uh oh!! quick LE Dad post a GIF!!!!!!

[icu812]

Originally posted by lulu
Haven't seen them yet. I hear they are really liking their new coach and that the attitude is more positive than ever in the recent past.
We will run a new defense and a new offense I am told.
Will get to see them Saturday against Mt.Pleasant.
We have 26 seniors and a total of 44 on varsity.....the total I'm not positive about but the senior numbers are correct.
Our seniors are all back together on one team to put the team back together thAt went undefeated in 7th and 8th grade. Not thAt that means anything but makes for good team
unity.
Our QB will be the same as last year and we will have some different guys on the OL.
The district we are in will be brutal but the team has a winning attitude and that's a positive. We are definitely the underdogs and the smallest school in our district.
I think they will play hard ....as usual. We shall see.

I'm looking forward to coming to your beautiful new facility again.
:) :)

Hope they have a better year. Sounds like they will. What a brutal district that is. What offense are they running this year?

Van should be better offensively but we have a hole to fill on the oline, 1 on the dline (our all state NT) and have to replace 2 corners. We have a new HC from Denton Ryan who will be running their version of the spread, new OC (Gram Harrell's brother) and it looks like a new qb if he can win the job (soph. transfer from Canton who is pretty good). I think we'll get better as the year goes on. Our linebackers are absolutely nasty this year.

Sorry guys back to the global freeze warming business :doh:

[lulu]

Originally posted by icu812
Hope they have a better year. Sounds like they will. What a brutal district that is. What offense are they running this year?

Van should be better offensively but we have a hole to fill on the oline, 1 on the dline (our all state NT) and have to replace 2 corners. We have a new HC from Denton Ryan who will be running their version of the spread, new OC (Gram Harrell's brother) and it looks like a new qb if he can win the job (soph. transfer from Canton who is pretty good). I think we'll get better as the year goes on. Our linebackers are absolutely nasty this year.

Go to PM...we're tramping on their thread

Sorry guys back to the global freeze warming business :doh:

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by DDBooger
You're wandering here lol


Actually it is warming on the outer edges. As was mentioned earlier, it's thickening in the interior is not inconsistent and is even happening in Greenland. Yet the edges are indeed warming. Especially the areas radiating away from the center such as the large Peninsula of Antarctica.
http://www.nerc-bas.ac.uk/public/icd/gjma/trends2004.col.pdf

Absolutely natural causes, natural reactions to anthropomorphic inducement. Actually Keiths NCDC source states that the cause of the Antartic extent is unknown. It further states that it is the opposite of the Artic retreat. Warming here cooling there. Alot of this hottest summer is just due to more and improved monitoring. The NCDC has advanced from ships throwing buckets over the side to electronic bouys, from a few thousand stations to tens of thousands sending them data. If they were using consistent stations with consistent instruments I might give it a little more thought.

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by Keith7
uh oh!! quick LE Dad post a GIF!!!!!! http://i949.photobucket.com/albums/ad340/LEDad_01/fy34.gif

[garciap77]

Originally posted by Keith7
uh oh!! quick LE Dad post a GIF!!!!!!

:sleeping:

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by lulu
Haha ya'll can post all you want.
Ya'll bring more valid points to the argument than Keith does.


Hey Keith the internet has a request for you.....




http://i949.photobucket.com/albums/ad340/LEDad_01/FLAIR27.jpg

:D

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by LE Dad
Actually Keiths NCDC source states that the cause of the Antartic extent is unknown. It further states that it is the opposite of the Artic retreat. Warming here cooling there. Alot of this hottest summer is just due to more and improved monitoring. The NCDC has advanced from ships throwing buckets over the side to electronic bouys, from a few thousand stations to tens of thousands sending them data. If they were using consistent stations with consistent instruments I might give it a little more thought. A lot of the Antarctic effect is unknown because it has not been as highly investigated as the northern hemisphere has been. Observed polar climate change from the instrumental record is not symmetric. Except along the Antarctic Peninsula, most evidence of significant warming is from the Arctic. In addition, total sea ice extent in the Southern Ocean has had no significant trend since satellites began taking data in 1979. Newer climate models generally also have very modest or no polar amplification over the Southern Ocean and Antarctica in hindcasts of the last century. The presence of a deep and circulating ocean component is key because ocean heat uptake increases most in the Southern Ocean as the climate warms. The asymmetry at the poles does not however result from a difference in feedback strength associated with the ice or atmosphere. In fact, when these same climate models are run to equilibrium the hemispheres have nearly equal polar amplification.

Also, in addition to the asymmetry from ocean heat uptake, models have been used to attribute a considerable fraction of the warming on the Antarctic Peninsula and the lack of warming elsewhere on Antarctica to a decreasing trend in stratospheric ozone levels in the past few decades. Due to the successful treaty to reduce ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) emissions, ozone levels in the stratosphere are expected to recover over Antarctica by about 2040, so eventually Antarctica begins to warm somewhat in climate model predictions of the 21st century.

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by garciap77
:sleeping: Sorry GP I was out fishing at my favorite spot and the Keiths were really biting today.....:D


I tell you where it is but ya got to promise not to tell.





http://i949.photobucket.com/albums/ad340/LEDad_01/Dufus-4.jpg

:D The Keiths really love it there.lol

[lulu]

Originally posted by LE Dad
Sorry GP I was out fishing at my favorite spot and the Keiths were really biting today.....:D


I tell you where it is but ya got to promise not t



http://i949.photobucket.com/albums/ad340/LEDad_01/Dufus-4.jpg

:D The Keiths really love it there.lol


LED are you trying to show up 77?

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by DDBooger
A lot of the Antarctic effect is unknown because it has not been as highly investigated as the northern hemisphere has been. Observed polar climate change from the instrumental record is not symmetric. Except along the Antarctic Peninsula, most evidence of significant warming is from the Arctic. In addition, total sea ice extent in the Southern Ocean has had no significant trend since satellites began taking data in 1979. Newer climate models generally also have very modest or no polar amplification over the Southern Ocean and Antarctica in hindcasts of the last century. The presence of a deep and circulating ocean component is key because ocean heat uptake increases most in the Southern Ocean as the climate warms. The asymmetry at the poles does not however result from a difference in feedback strength associated with the ice or atmosphere. In fact, when these same climate models are run to equilibrium the hemispheres have nearly equal polar amplification.

Also, in addition to the asymmetry from ocean heat uptake, models have been used to attribute a considerable fraction of the warming on the Antarctic Peninsula and the lack of warming elsewhere on Antarctica to a decreasing trend in stratospheric ozone levels in the past few decades. Due to the successful treaty to reduce ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) emissions, ozone levels in the stratosphere are expected to recover over Antarctica by about 2040, so eventually Antarctica begins to warm somewhat in climate model predictions of the 21st century. Alot is unknown is correct, but attribute this and model for that and then predict the other.... thats just alot of speculation. You can use all the big words you want but bottom line is the same as your first line... It is simply unknown, Antartic and global. Let them get consistent data, from consistent sources, over an consistent amount of time. That is something that I can believe.

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by lulu
LED are you trying to show up 77?

No way Lulu. GP is the picture king.:clap: :clap:http://i949.photobucket.com/albums/ad340/LEDad_01/gif/jhbkl.gif

[garciap77]

Originally posted by lulu
LED are you trying to show up 77?



http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd185/garciap77/Fishing.jpg


;)

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by garciap77
http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd185/garciap77/Fishing.jpg


;) See!!:clap: :clap:







:D

[lulu]

Originally posted by LE Dad
See!!:clap: :clap:







:D

You been taking lessons from him I bet.That's just not fair. I can't do all that. :doh:

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by LE Dad
Alot is unknown is correct, but attribute this and model for that and then predict the other.... thats just alot of speculation. You can use all the big words you want but bottom line is the same as your first line... It is simply unknown, Antartic and global. Let them get consistent data, from consistent sources, over an consistent amount of time. That is something that I can believe. Oh LE no amount of evidence will convince you. It doesn't agree with your politics. I understand that, I'm not trying to change minds. It appears consensus in this forum is a strong determinent for many. LOL sad.

[garciap77]

Originally posted by lulu
You been taking lessons from him I bet.That's just not fair. I can't do all that. :doh:

lulu where have you been? Looks like you are ready to start the season!!!:)

[lulu]

Originally posted by DDBooger
Oh LE no amount of evidence will convince you. It doesn't agree with your politics. I understand that, I'm not trying to change minds. It appears consensus in this forum is a strong determinent for many. LOL sad.

Don't let them frustrate you DD. They're just loving seeing you get all wadded up.:D

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by lulu
Don't let them frustrate you DD. They're just loving seeing you get all wadded up.:D Waddled up? haha It would appear the overwhelming response to Keith and the ad hominem attacks as well as Obumer and Al Gore talk is coming from very frustrated people. If you can't debate the science, you call names! :)

This stuff is fun and interesting to me. Hell, debating is fun. Until people start in on the personal stuff. Which won't be long, watch. ;)

[garciap77]

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd185/garciap77/stop-global-warming-cartoon.gif


;)

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by garciap77
http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd185/garciap77/stop-global-warming-cartoon.gif


;) This is exactly what Keith was talking about. Snow=no global climate change. Record heat=no global climate change lol.

Oklahoma has been in a MASSIVE heatwave. 101-105 every day. :mad:

[garciap77]

Originally posted by DDBooger
This is exactly what Keith was talking about. Snow=no global climate change. Record heat=no global climate change lol.

Oklahoma has been in a MASSIVE heatwave. 101-105 every day. :mad:

My co-work who was born and reared in OK says it's normal! Hey, I don't know it seem hot here in Texas, but I think it was hotter in 2006! In fact I think we have had mild winters and summers the last few years. Maybe I'm just getting use to the weather. LOL I just hope the sky don't fall on me!
http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd185/garciap77/chicken-little-sky-falling.jpg


;)

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by garciap77
My co-work who was born and reared in OK says it's normal! Hey, I don't know it seem hot here in Texas, but I think it was hotter in 2006! In fact I think we have had mild winters and summers the last few years. Maybe I'm just getting use to the weather. LOL I just hope the sky don't fall on me!
http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd185/garciap77/chicken-little-sky-falling.jpg


;) It's just local weather. But no, it's not normal. I looked it up, this is one of the hottest summers ever in Okie. Though, not due to any climactic effect. Their is a high pressure system that is sitting atop of the Central US, creating much milder temperatures for Texas. So Oklahoma is sucking our heat. lol

By the way, the sky is falling. Muslims are building a mosque! :eek:

:D

[sinton66]

Since human beings breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide, and CO2 is the cause of global warming, I can think of some people who should stop breathing.:D

Me? I plant trees. ;)

[garciap77]

Originally posted by DDBooger
It's just local weather. But no, it's not normal. I looked it up, this is one of the hottest summers ever in Okie. Though, not due to any climactic effect. Their is a high pressure system that is sitting atop of the Central US, creating much milder temperatures for us. So Oklahoma is sucking our heat. lol

By the way, the sky is falling. Muslims are building a mosque! :eek:

:D

In Stillwater??? ¡No Me Digas! :D
http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd185/garciap77/Mosque1_gallery__600x393-600x400scopy.jpg

;)

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by DDBooger
Oh LE no amount of evidence will convince you. It doesn't agree with your politics. I understand that, I'm not trying to change minds. It appears consensus in this forum is a strong determinent for many. LOL sad. It has nothing to do with politics for me. It does have alot to do with common sense. If you have increased and improved monitoring on a global basis, which is the mission of the NCDC then you can have a shift in the global temperature. Just as adding more variables to any equation can change that equation. All I am saying is if we are going to use this data as a comparison to years past it should be apples to apples. Use the same # of sites, same locations.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by LE Dad
It has nothing to do with politics for me. It does have alot to do with common sense. If you have increased and improved monitoring on a global basis, which is the mission of the NCDC then you can have a shift in the global temperature. Just as adding more variables to any equation can change that equation. All I am saying is if we are going to use this data as a comparison to years past it should be apples to apples. Use the same # of sites, same locations. No that is not how it works. Statistically, increasing numbers doesn't equate change. It should give a sharper number such as approaching the Central limit on a curve. There is plenty of common sense, people just choose to ignore it cause they have a cognitive dissonance ingrained in them.

[navscanmaster]

Not trying to end the argument or debate here, but can we all agree that the United States, of which we are all citizens, needs to continue on a greener path as it has been doing? As the most powerful (debatable, I know) nation on Earth, we should be the leaders in this goal. That means whether or not man-made global warming is truth or false. That is coming from a conservative citizen that is employed by an oilfield company!

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by navscanmaster
Not trying to end the argument or debate here, but can we all agree that the United States, of which we are all citizens, needs to continue on a greener path as it has been doing? As the most powerful (debatable, I know) nation on Earth, we should be the leaders in this goal. That means whether or not man-made global warming is truth or false. That is coming from a conservative citizen that is employed by an oilfield company! My new favorite poster! ;)

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by DDBooger
No that is not how it works. Statistically, increasing numbers doesn't equate change. It should give a sharper number such as approaching the Central limit on a curve. There is plenty of common sense, people just choose to ignore it cause they have a cognitive dissonance ingrained in them. Correct it should give a sharper #, as should using more precise instruments and utilizing highly trained professionals to analyze the data. That is partly my point, perhaps it is not the hottest summer ever, but that we are just able to get a sharper # of how hot it is.

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by navscanmaster
Not trying to end the argument or debate here, but can we all agree that the United States, of which we are all citizens, needs to continue on a greener path as it has been doing? As the most powerful (debatable, I know) nation on Earth, we should be the leaders in this goal. That means whether or not man-made global warming is truth or false. That is coming from a conservative citizen that is employed by an oilfield company! I try to be as energy efficient as possible just because it siimply makes economic sense.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by LE Dad
Correct it should give a sharper #, as should using more precise instruments and utilizing highly trained professionals to analyze the data. That is partly my point, perhaps it is not the hottest summer ever, but that we are just able to get a sharper # of how hot it is. Understood.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by LE Dad
I try to be as energy efficient as possible just because it siimply makes economic sense. Absolutely, we have to get past the "BUY GREEN" label and massive corporate green washing. Some of my research has found many conservatives are unknowingly GREEN. It was a hilarious revelation to some, but SIMPLE is key. Not consuming. I found that many people who were exposed to nature early in life had a inclination to protect it, despite the inverse being true (we need nature, nature doesn't need us). This broke a lot of basic tenets that viewed conservative minded individuals economically as merely fetishizing nature. Quite the opposite. We'd be amazed at how much we all have in common if we'd simply remove the R and D from our allegiance and remembered the U the S and the A in our shared experience.

[lulu]

Originally posted by DDBooger
Waddled up? haha It would appear the overwhelming response to Keith and the ad hominem attacks as well as Obumer and Al Gore talk is coming from very frustrated people. If you can't debate the science, you call names! :)

This stuff is fun and interesting to me. Hell, debating is fun. Until people start in on the personal stuff. Which won't be long, watch. ;)

I get so tickled reading you guys' posts.
You are so intense. Lots of fun just reading.:D

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by DDBooger
Absolutely, we have to get past the "BUY GREEN" label and massive corporate green washing. Some of my research has found many conservatives are unknowingly GREEN. It was a hilarious revelation to some, but SIMPLE is key. Not consuming. I found that many people who were exposed to nature early in life had a inclination to protect it, despite the inverse being true (we need nature, nature doesn't need us). This broke a lot of basic tenets that viewed conservative minded individuals economically as merely fetishizing nature. Quite the opposite. We'd be amazed at how much we all have in common if we'd simply remove the R and D from our allegiance and remembered the U the S and the A in our shared experience. Well stated Boog.:clap: :clap:

That is why you are my favorite political poster. You, like myself, see past the R and D smokescreen.

[icu812]

Originally posted by DDBooger
Absolutely, we have to get past the "BUY GREEN" label and massive corporate green washing. Some of my research has found many conservatives are unknowingly GREEN. It was a hilarious revelation to some, but SIMPLE is key. Not consuming. I found that many people who were exposed to nature early in life had a inclination to protect it, despite the inverse being true (we need nature, nature doesn't need us). This broke a lot of basic tenets that viewed conservative minded individuals economically as merely fetishizing nature. Quite the opposite. We'd be amazed at how much we all have in common if we'd simply remove the R and D from our allegiance and remembered the U the S and the A in our shared experience.

Hey I think I might agree with something boog said.

I call myself a conservative and would love to be off the grid someday. Does that make me "green"? As a fisherman and hunter I have an "inclination" to protect nature because I want my kids and grandkids to be able to enjoy it. As a former farmer I have a desire to be environmentally responsible and protect our natural resources. I'd like to see the family farm make a comeback. I think most of us would agree on this but its the process of achieving these goals that separate us.

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by icu812
Hey I think I might agree with something boog said.

I call myself a conservative and would love to be off the grid someday. Does that make me "green"? As a fisherman and hunter I have an "inclination" to protect nature because I want my kids and grandkids to be able to enjoy it. As a former farmer I have a desire to be environmentally responsible and protect our natural resources. I'd like to see the family farm make a comeback. I think most of us would agree on this but its the process of achieving these goals that separate us. Boog is a true Lib, but he actually is a breath of fresh air in that he actually researches his topic and presents solid opinions and is proactive instead of "blah,blah,blah... you're wrong"
I may not always agree with what he says, but there is no one I would rather disagree with.

[navscanmaster]

Originally posted by LE Dad
Well stated Boog.:clap: :clap:

That is why you are my favorite political poster. You, like myself, see past the R and D smokescreen.

What I wish people on both sides of the aisle would realize in debates like this is that the other side is not dead wrong or ignorant because they don't see it your way. I, as a conservative, have long felt that liberals or progressives have acted "enlightened" and superior to me when they hear my point of view. That is until I started to see how some of the idiots on my side acted just as superior and condescending toward the left. The way I feel these days when I approach an argument is that I don't want to be called a half-wit, religious crazy, Fox News watching redneck any more than someone on the left wants to be called a tree-hugging, parade marching, Olbermann loving, baby killing panty-waste.;)

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by navscanmaster
What I wish people on both sides of the aisle would realize in debates like this is that the other side is not dead wrong or ignorant because they don't see it your way. I, as a conservative, have long felt that liberals or progressives have acted "enlightened" and superior to me when they hear my point of view. That is until I started to see how some of the idiots on my side acted just as superior and condescending toward the left. The way I feel these days when I approach an argument is that I don't want to be called a half-wit, religious crazy, Fox News watching redneck any more than someone on the left wants to be called a tree-hugging, parade marching, Olbermann loving, baby killing panty-waste.;) Good point.:D

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by DDBooger
That anecdote is a debunking? haha Nevermind that those being paid to refute the science are doing so in hopes of preserving their business. Please, stop with the useless strawmen.

Actually yes, aforementioned Roy Spencer UofAlabama-Huntsville, a skeptic (though he's reversed himself now on whether the planet is cooling and now agrees that it is warming) not only gets federal funding but has access to his own satelite. OOPS!!!


They'll get those grants because they've been justified. lol Certainly not in many of the pseudo-science journals you list or some of the renegade scientists gripping on to long held beliefs that simply scientists have tired of debunking. As I said, in the political corridor, if you say something over and over again, someone will get it, cite and claim it for the truth (Imhofe).

Another anecdote. lol


Yes, though it is anything but a guess, it is formulaic, much like stock derivatives, game theory, chaos theory and other theoretical suppositions that operate on input. Nobody goes in thinking they know what they'll get. If anything, they've found they've far underestimated the effect.

Or they can take what they want to hear and call that the truth and get political and economic backing from powerful resources and just claim it's false. lol

Lame.
Each of those issues is real. because I did not post bibliographical notes does not make them anecdotal. And in fact you did answer my responses in exactly the same way.

What I said about computer models was accurate. They are formulaic equations attempting to predict the future while ignoring fundamental facts.
For example, they do not deal with water vapor at all. Since it is 98 percent of the green house gases that is a major flaw. They do not know the function of clouds and whether they are positive or negative feed back. What they do is plug in an approximation of a fact they do not have for the variable. The existing forecasts models of global warming have a mistake range of 400 percent. That is the fundamental proof of their lack of science. When we went to the moon they traveled 250,000 and entered the orbit with in a few inches of the insertion and came back the same. If you sent them to the moon with 400 percent error, well you get the picture. This is all very simple common sense stuff. Science can be proven. Everybody knows the rate at which objects fall in a vacuum on earth and each object will fall at the same rate. IF you turned in your tax returns and you thought you owed 3000 dollars and you were off 400 percent do you think the IRS would just let it slide? Of course not. Science is provable fact. Not consensus. Consensus if for politics.
Climatology is still in its infancy and is not even close to being
a precise science.
That being said it is warming but it is a natural phenomen and even if every country in the world followed the koyot accords it would only lower the temp
about .01 of a degree over expected warming. Meaning man cannot really affect the global warming or cooling at all.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by navscanmaster
Not trying to end the argument or debate here, but can we all agree that the United States, of which we are all citizens, needs to continue on a greener path as it has been doing? As the most powerful (debatable, I know) nation on Earth, we should be the leaders in this goal. That means whether or not man-made global warming is truth or false. That is coming from a conservative citizen that is employed by an oilfield company! I'm all for cleaner air and more efficient use of energy and natural resources. However, the Green crowd seems to want to go green overnight, despite the cost. As research continues to advance newer, greener technologies, those in the free market will bring those technologies to the masses.

What I don't want is the government to artificially inflate energy prices to "level the playing field" between greener (see: much more expensive right now) energy vs. conventional energy sources.

[waterboy]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
I'm all for cleaner air and more efficient use of energy and natural resources. However, the Green crowd seems to want to go green overnight, despite the cost. As research continues to advance newer, greener technologies, those in the free market will bring those technologies to the masses.

What I don't want is the government to artificially inflate energy prices to "level the playing field" between greener (see: much more expensive right now) energy vs. conventional energy sources.
You are exactly right. A slow progression to green energy is the only feasible way to keep our economy from total collapse, at least in energy producing states. That's the whole point for me.:clap:

[Pudlugger]

We're not gonna take it anymore (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg3YaGyuaTE) :mad:

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Lame.
Each of those issues is real. because I did not post bibliographical notes does not make them anecdotal. And in fact you did answer my responses in exactly the same way.
Anecdotal at best, strawmen at worst.


Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
What I said about computer models was accurate. They are formulaic equations attempting to predict the future while ignoring fundamental facts.
For example, they do not deal with water vapor at all. Since it is 98 percent of the green house gases that is a major flaw. Not a single climate model or climate textbook fails to discuss the role water vapor plays in the greenhouse effect. It is the strongest greenhouse gas, contributing 36% to 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds. It is however, not considered a climate "forcing," because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature.

If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times). Similarly, due to the abundance of ocean on the earth's surface, if you somehow removed all the water from the air, it would quickly be replaced through evaporation.

This has the interesting consequence that if you could somehow instantly remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, the temperature would begin to drop, causing precipitation to remove H2O from the air, causing even further drops, in a feedback effect that would not end until no liquid water was left, only ice sheets and frozen oceans.

CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere for centuries before natural sinks finish absorbing the excess. This is plenty of time to have substantial and long-lasting effects on the climate system. As the climate warms in response to CO2, humidity rises and increased H2O concentration acts as a significant amplifier of CO2-driven warming, basically doubling or tripling its effect.



Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
They do not know the function of clouds and whether they are positive or negative feed back. What they do is plug in an approximation of a fact they do not have for the variable. All of the atmospheric global climate models used for the kind of climate projections synthesized by the IPCC take the effects of clouds into account. You can read a discussion about cloud processes and feedbacks in the IPCC TAR.
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/271.htm

It is true, however, that clouds are one of the largest sources of uncertainty in the GCMs. They are complicated to model because they have both positive feedbacks, preventing surface heat from escaping back into space, and negative feedbacks, reflecting incoming sunlight before it can reach the surface. The precise balance of these opposing effects depends on time of day, time of year, altitude, size of the water droplets and/or ice particles, latitude, current air temperature, and size and shape.

On top of that, different types of clouds will interact, amplifying or mitigating one another's effects as they coexist in different layers of the atmosphere. There are also latent heat considerations; water vapor condenses during cloud formation and precipitation events, and water droplets evaporate when clouds dissipate.

The ultimate contribution of clouds to global temperature trends is highly uncertain, but according to the best estimates is likely to be positive over the coming century. There is no indication anywhere that any kind of cloud processes will stop greenhouse-gas-driven warming, and this includes observations of the past as well as modeling experiments. Of course the best test of a computer model is to match it against the real world. This has been done through hindcasting. You take known historical data on CO2, pollutants, etc... and run the GCM. You then see how well the temperatures it produces matches what happened in the real world. It turns out that the current GCMs are quite good at matching with known historical data in fact. If the model clouds were behaving much differently than real ones this would not have been possible


Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
The existing forecasts models of global warming have a mistake range of 400 percent. That is the fundamental proof of their lack of science. When we went to the moon they traveled 250,000 and entered the orbit with in a few inches of the insertion and came back the same. If you sent them to the moon with 400 percent error, well you get the picture. This is all very simple common sense stuff. Science can be proven. Everybody knows the rate at which objects fall in a vacuum on earth and each object will fall at the same rate. IF you turned in your tax returns and you thought you owed 3000 dollars and you were off 400 percent do you think the IRS would just let it slide? Of course not. Science is provable fact. This is the part that makes me chuckle you're comparing real time science to impact science. If I was looking for a forecast 50 years from now because I planned to send astronauts to space in 50 years, your comparison would draw merit. lol These kind of gaffes lead me to wonder how scripted your responses are and where you're getting your information from. there are global temperature predictions that have been validated. We can start with one of the pioneers in climate science. Over 100 years ago, in 1896, Svante Arrhenius predicted that human emissions of CO2 would warm the climate. Obviously he used a much simpler model than current Ocean Atmosphere Coupled Global Climate models, which run on super computers.

Arrhenius overestimated the climate's sensitivity to CO2 by a factor of 2. At the same time, he hugely underestimated the degree of warming, assuming CO2 would rise very slowly (who could have predicted the emissions the future held?). Still, it was a pretty impressive early success for models.

Running the clock forward: in 1988, James Hansen of NASA GISS fame predicted,
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2005/Crichton_20050927.pdf
that temperature would climb over the next 12 years, with a possible brief episode of cooling in the event of a large volcanic eruption. He made this prediction in a landmark paper and before a Senate hearing, which marked the official "coming out" to the general public of anthropogenic global warming. Twelve years later, he was proven remarkably correct, requiring adjustment only for the timing difference between the simulated future volcanic eruption and the actual eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

And let's face it, every year of increasing global mean temperature is one more year of success for the climate models. The acceleration of the rise is also playing out as predicted, though to be fair, decades will need to pass before such confirmation is inarguable. Putting global surface temperatures aside, there are some other significant model predictions made and confirmed. If we seek even more confidence, there is another way to test a model's predictive power over long time periods, also known as hindcasting. By starting the model at some point in the past -- say, the turn of the 20th century -- and running it forward, feeding it confirmed observational data on GHG, aerosol, solar, volcanic, and albedo forcing, we can directly compare modeled behavior with the actual, observed course of events. Of course, this has been done many times. Have a look at this page and judge for yourself how the models held up.
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm


Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Not consensus. Consensus if for politics.
Climatology is still in its infancy and is not even close to being
a precise science.
That being said it is warming but it is a natural phenomen and even if every country in the world followed the koyot accords it would only lower the temp
about .01 of a degree over expected warming. Meaning man cannot really affect the global warming or cooling at all. [/B] Impact science isn't a precise science, NO SCIENCE IS A PRECISE SCIENCE...Any scientist would tell you that. Again, making me wonder where you are scouring information from. All science has (impact and real time) have chance of error. By the way, climatologists don't say we can lower the temperature, they are saying we have to slow down the rate of increase. AGAIN, making me wonder. :)

[Bullaholic]

Anybody change their mind yet? :D

[sahen]

Originally posted by DDBooger
No that is not how it works. Statistically, increasing numbers doesn't equate change. It should give a sharper number such as approaching the Central limit on a curve. There is plenty of common sense, people just choose to ignore it cause they have a cognitive dissonance ingrained in them.

this should be true in most cases however there is the possiblity that the old data's central limit is actually different than the new data's central limit...if the 2 data sets have significantly different central limits then you cant compare the 2 sets because they then become 2 different types of datapoints....

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by sahen
this should be true in most cases however there is the possiblity that the old data's central limit is actually different than the new data's central limit...if the 2 data sets have significantly different central limits then you cant compare the 2 sets because they then become 2 different types of datapoints.... Correct, but what are you doing besides quoting to me statistical method?

[BwdLion73]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
Anybody change their mind yet? :D

Nope....still hot outside. ;)

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by DDBooger
Anecdotal at best, strawmen at worst.

Not a single climate model or climate textbook fails to discuss the role water vapor plays in the greenhouse effect. It is the strongest greenhouse gas, contributing 36% to 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds. It is however, not considered a climate "forcing," because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature.

If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times). Similarly, due to the abundance of ocean on the earth's surface, if you somehow removed all the water from the air, it would quickly be replaced through evaporation.

This has the interesting consequence that if you could somehow instantly remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, the temperature would begin to drop, causing precipitation to remove H2O from the air, causing even further drops, in a feedback effect that would not end until no liquid water was left, only ice sheets and frozen oceans.

CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere for centuries before natural sinks finish absorbing the excess. This is plenty of time to have substantial and long-lasting effects on the climate system. As the climate warms in response to CO2, humidity rises and increased H2O concentration acts as a significant amplifier of CO2-driven warming, basically doubling or tripling its effect.


All of the atmospheric global climate models used for the kind of climate projections synthesized by the IPCC take the effects of clouds into account. You can read a discussion about cloud processes and feedbacks in the IPCC TAR.
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/271.htm

It is true, however, that clouds are one of the largest sources of uncertainty in the GCMs. They are complicated to model because they have both positive feedbacks, preventing surface heat from escaping back into space, and negative feedbacks, reflecting incoming sunlight before it can reach the surface. The precise balance of these opposing effects depends on time of day, time of year, altitude, size of the water droplets and/or ice particles, latitude, current air temperature, and size and shape.

On top of that, different types of clouds will interact, amplifying or mitigating one another's effects as they coexist in different layers of the atmosphere. There are also latent heat considerations; water vapor condenses during cloud formation and precipitation events, and water droplets evaporate when clouds dissipate.

The ultimate contribution of clouds to global temperature trends is highly uncertain, but according to the best estimates is likely to be positive over the coming century. There is no indication anywhere that any kind of cloud processes will stop greenhouse-gas-driven warming, and this includes observations of the past as well as modeling experiments. Of course the best test of a computer model is to match it against the real world. This has been done through hindcasting. You take known historical data on CO2, pollutants, etc... and run the GCM. You then see how well the temperatures it produces matches what happened in the real world. It turns out that the current GCMs are quite good at matching with known historical data in fact. If the model clouds were behaving much differently than real ones this would not have been possible

This is the part that makes me chuckle you're comparing real time science to impact science. If I was looking for a forecast 50 years from now because I planned to send astronauts to space in 50 years, your comparison would draw merit. lol These kind of gaffes lead me to wonder how scripted your responses are and where you're getting your information from. there are global temperature predictions that have been validated. We can start with one of the pioneers in climate science. Over 100 years ago, in 1896, Svante Arrhenius predicted that human emissions of CO2 would warm the climate. Obviously he used a much simpler model than current Ocean Atmosphere Coupled Global Climate models, which run on super computers.

Arrhenius overestimated the climate's sensitivity to CO2 by a factor of 2. At the same time, he hugely underestimated the degree of warming, assuming CO2 would rise very slowly (who could have predicted the emissions the future held?). Still, it was a pretty impressive early success for models.

Running the clock forward: in 1988, James Hansen of NASA GISS fame predicted,
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2005/Crichton_20050927.pdf
that temperature would climb over the next 12 years, with a possible brief episode of cooling in the event of a large volcanic eruption. He made this prediction in a landmark paper and before a Senate hearing, which marked the official "coming out" to the general public of anthropogenic global warming. Twelve years later, he was proven remarkably correct, requiring adjustment only for the timing difference between the simulated future volcanic eruption and the actual eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

And let's face it, every year of increasing global mean temperature is one more year of success for the climate models. The acceleration of the rise is also playing out as predicted, though to be fair, decades will need to pass before such confirmation is inarguable. Putting global surface temperatures aside, there are some other significant model predictions made and confirmed. If we seek even more confidence, there is another way to test a model's predictive power over long time periods, also known as hindcasting. By starting the model at some point in the past -- say, the turn of the 20th century -- and running it forward, feeding it confirmed observational data on GHG, aerosol, solar, volcanic, and albedo forcing, we can directly compare modeled behavior with the actual, observed course of events. Of course, this has been done many times. Have a look at this page and judge for yourself how the models held up.
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm

Impact science isn't a precise science, NO SCIENCE IS A PRECISE SCIENCE...Any scientist would tell you that. Again, making me wonder where you are scouring information from. All science has (impact and real time) have chance of error. By the way, climatologists don't say we can lower the temperature, they are saying we have to slow down the rate of increase. AGAIN, making me wonder. :)

This is laughable makes me wonder what your thinking is. The temperature data is beyond flawed. Antartica which contains 90 percent of the worlds ice is adding ice at an expanding rate and is cooling. When you look at Puentos Aires it has cooled for the last 140 years. Albany NY has cooled by a couple of degrees while 180 miles a way NY NY has warmed by 8 degrees. The Satellite data agrees with much less warming then the ground data. So predicting temperatures is not telling in predicting man being able to affect global warming or cooling.

[Pick6]

Originally posted by DDBooger
This is exactly what Keith was talking about. Snow=no global climate change. Record heat=no global climate change lol.

Oklahoma has been in a MASSIVE heatwave. 101-105 every day. :mad:

My brother-in-law and sister run a church camp NW of OKC, they say being over a hundred during the summer camps is not unusual.

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by Pick6
My brother-in-law and sister run a church camp NW of OKC, they say being over a hundred during the summer camps is not unusual. 2 words...

Dust Bowl

lol:D

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
This is laughable makes me wonder what your thinking is. The temperature data is beyond flawed. Antartica which contains 90 percent of the worlds ice is adding ice at an expanding rate and is cooling. When you look at Puentos Aires it has cooled for the last 140 years. Albany NY has cooled by a couple of degrees while 180 miles a way NY NY has warmed by 8 degrees. The Satellite data agrees with much less warming then the ground data. So predicting temperatures is not telling in predicting man being able to affect global warming or cooling. I've answered the Antarctic question already. lol

You are labeling places that are cooling. You are using geographical pinpoints to explain climactic phenomenon. Talk about wondering what you're thinking. LOL As far as Satelite and surface temperature, it turns out that errors were uncovered and the MSU Satellite temperature analysis now shows warming well in line with model expectations. In short, this long-running debate turned out to be a great validation of the models and a real death blow to the "earth is not warming" crowd.
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c268/FCarrejo/satelite.jpg
I can't show the PDFs that prove this because they're protected. But I can give you the sources if you like.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by LE Dad
2 words...

Dust Bowl

lol:D That was farming issues in combination with weather phenomenon.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Pick6
My brother-in-law and sister run a church camp NW of OKC, they say being over a hundred during the summer camps is not unusual. No not unusual the length of time is and lack of rain. Though, I said already, this isn't due to climactic forcing but rather just a pressure system sitting over the Central U.S.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by DDBooger
I've answered the Antarctic question already. lol

You are labeling places that are cooling. You are using geographical pinpoints to explain climactic phenomenon. Talk about wondering what you're thinking. LOL As far as Satelite and surface temperature, it turns out that errors were uncovered and the MSU Satellite temperature analysis now shows warming well in line with model expectations. In short, this long-running debate turned out to be a great validation of the models and a real death blow to the "earth is not warming" crowd.
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c268/FCarrejo/satelite.jpg
I can't show the PDFs that prove this because they're protected. But I can give you the sources if you like.

Yes but the point is that Antartica is the single biggest player in the climatology of this planet. It has ocean unobstructed circling it and transmitting cold water and temps. As antartica goes so goes the climate. The indications are that we may be in a sunvariable climate position with the next glacial age beginning. This is exactly what the scientists were saying just 40 years ago.
It is Global Warming is it not. These places have been cooling and in antarctica's case adding Ice since the 1850's. If it is global why are these and other cities(i have a long list) cooling over the same span?

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Yes but the point is that Antartica is the single biggest player in the climatology of this planet. It has ocean unobstructed circling it and transmitting cold water and temps. As antartica goes so goes the climate. The indications are that we may be in a sunvariable climate position with the next glacial age beginning. This is exactly what the scientists were saying just 40 years ago. Well, I think this is a good stopping point in this whole debate, because I have to go, I don't agree it's the biggest player, but I do agree Antarctica needs to be more closely examined. The terrain makes it unforgiving, however as more accurate data is assessed we can better determine what exactly is occurring down there. Though, I don't foresee a glacial age beginning, at least not forced by an Antarctic change.

[Bullaholic]

A closing note....

Regardless of which side of the global warming debate you are on--manmade or natural causes, perhaps Steven Hawking has the ultimate consideration and solution for our future...

http://mystateline.com/fulltext-news/?nxd_id=185535

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
A closing note....

Regardless of which side of the global warming debate you are on--manmade or natural causes, perhaps Steven Hawking has the ultimate consideration and solution for our future...

http://mystateline.com/fulltext-news/?nxd_id=185535 That man is a living gem, this world loses big time when he passes away. Him and Dr. Michio Kaku really implore people to use their sci-fi minds to create realistic solutions. In order for humans to persist we have to create an artificial Panspermia into space.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Yeah I love that guy. Did a lot of papers on his studies of black holes and hawking radiation back in the 70's. Unbelievable that he continues to be a genius and going strong in his current physical condition.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
A closing note....

Regardless of which side of the global warming debate you are on--manmade or natural causes, perhaps Steven Hawking has the ultimate consideration and solution for our future...

http://mystateline.com/fulltext-news/?nxd_id=185535

JUst so you understand, I am not suggesting that it is not warming. I merely suggest that impact science is a reasonably young vernacular while direct science is the measuring stick. Because I believe that the glacial cycling is caused by cosmology rather than local planetary conditions which transiently may amplify with local conditions. It has been warmer in past interglacials than it is now and in fact was warmer 800 years ago than it is now and man had nothing at all to do with it in either case.

[Aesculus gilmus]

I love reading this site for their wacko conspiracy theories. Anyone who hates Obama, and I'm sure that includes most of you, will WANT to believe this:

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1396.htm

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Aesculus gilmus
I love reading this site for their wacko conspiracy theories. Anyone who hates Obama, and I'm sure that includes most of you, will WANT to believe this:

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1396.htm LOL

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
JUst so you understand, I am not suggesting that it is not warming. I merely suggest that impact science is a reasonably young vernacular while direct science is the measuring stick. Because I believe that the glacial cycling is caused by cosmology rather than local planetary conditions which transiently may amplify with local conditions. It has been warmer in past interglacials than it is now and in fact was warmer 800 years ago than it is now and man had nothing at all to do with it in either case. The interglacial periods and medieval ice age are also debatable. We can leave that for another time. Thanks for the exchange Billy, aside from a few snide remarks, we kept it much more civilized than I've seen these discussions descend into.

[garciap77]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
Anybody change their mind yet? :D

About what???:D



;)

[LE Dad]

Scientists discover source of global warming...























http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn46/cdpc4/dallas-cowboys-cheerleader.jpg

[garciap77]

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd185/garciap77/001_sexy_nfl_cheerleader-7683261.jpg
:D

[Keith7]

Originally posted by LE Dad
Scientists discover source of global warming...









http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn46/cdpc4/dallas-cowboys-cheerleader.jpg

Did she fart??

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by garciap77
http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd185/garciap77/001_sexy_nfl_cheerleader-7683261.jpg
:D http://i949.photobucket.com/albums/ad340/LEDad_01/emotionicons/smiley_yikes.gif

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by Keith7


Did you post something? Cause this is all I saw...

http://i949.photobucket.com/albums/ad340/LEDad_01/Rocket/craptalk.jpg







Pink polka dots never looked so good...

http://i825.photobucket.com/albums/zz177/jayhawkaep/Dallas%20Cowboy%20Cheerleaders/DCC3.jpg





:D

[sahen]

Originally posted by DDBooger
Correct, but what are you doing besides quoting to me statistical method?

i was just pointing out that more data does not always equal better data or data that can used to improve upon an old data set...your original post that i quoted could have been taken that way...

[ctown]

Originally posted by DDBooger
That man is a living gem, this world loses big time when he passes away. Him and Dr. Michio Kaku really implore people to use their sci-fi minds to create realistic solutions. In order for humans to persist we have to create an artificial Panspermia into space.

Is that a French dish. I'm sure it will be expensive to have to leave the planet to cook it. I have never had the guts to even try calf fries. Not sure I'm interested in that stuff even if it's sauté style in a pan.

Yes I do know what panspermia is. I just can't believe you didn't roll that one out there for fun.

[Gobbla2001]

A few weekends ago we were spending a lazy Sunday on the island when I thought to myself "Damn, it's bleeping hot, we humans are turning up the oven on this thing!"

So I made a promise to myself to do what I can to contribute to the battle against man-made global warming...

I decided to write some poems in the Haiku form and maybe send them off to Al Gore... He could probably use them somehow... So I went to the boat, grabbed my crackberry and started hammering away on its notebook... Dunno why but I could only finish one:

Global-Warming at the Beach
By Gobbla2001

Butterflies wither,
It's really hot out today,
Wait, I see boobies

I'm gunna try and write more, but I couldn't stay focused for some reason...

[garciap77]

Originally posted by LE Dad
Did you post something? Cause this is all I saw...









Pink polka dots never looked so good...

http://i825.photobucket.com/albums/zz177/jayhawkaep/Dallas%20Cowboy%20Cheerleaders/DCC3.jpg





:D

I like gold!
http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd185/garciap77/imagesnnmm.jpg
;)

[charlesrixey]

Originally posted by Twirling Time
I still remember 2000 when I walked out of a pizza place on Labor Day and it was 112 in Dallas.

Here this year it's just another hot summer. But when it gets to 100 in Boston, that's a little gross.

I BELIEVE IN 1999 WE HAD 104 DAYS OF CONSECUTIVE 100+ DAYS IN DALLAS RIGHT?

[BILLYFRED0000]

Will rix I know for a fact that in 1980 we had 60 consecutive days of 100 degree weather. It hit 113 in Dallas and in San Angelo it hit 111. That was the warmest summer on record in texas.

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by garciap77
I like gold!
http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd185/garciap77/imagesnnmm.jpg
;) Nothing wrong with a little Leopard print is there??


http://i512.photobucket.com/albums/t325/3584transit/leopardbikini.jpg

:D

[LE Dad]

LE Dads theory on how to win the global warming debate...lol






Global warming....


http://i861.photobucket.com/albums/ab178/timerman243/Women%20in%20bikini/b309149e.jpg




It beats the alternative.:thinking:



http://i1017.photobucket.com/albums/af299/yopaulyyo/Alaska%20road%20trip/DSC01205.jpg

[Black_Magic]

Some of the same fools will come on here the next big snow storm we have and say " Some Global warming we have here.." You know who they are. The same ones you heard spout off about it in the winter... Facts are we have had the Hottest 10 years on record. Some people need to open thier eyes and look at the facts that keep compounding .

[garciap77]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Some of the same fools will come on here the next big snow storm we have and say " Some Global warming we have here.." You know who they are. The same ones you heard spout off about it in the winter... Facts are we have had the Hottest 10 years on record. Some people need to open thier eyes and look at the facts that keep compounding .

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd185/garciap77/AlbaDM2604_468x597.jpg

;)

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001


Global-Warming at the Beach
By Gobbla2001

Butterflies wither,
It's really hot out today,
Wait, I see boobies

I'm gunna try and write more, but I couldn't stay focused for some reason...


LOL!!!:clap: :clap:

[DDBooger]

FINALLY!!! We got a break from the triple digits. It was 70 degrees this morning and not expected to get above 92 this afternoon. Back to the 100s rest of the week though. :rolleyes:

Every time I see dark clouds up here, it takes on a whole new meaning as these Tornado sirens all over town remind me.

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by DDBooger
FINALLY!!! We got a break from the triple digits. It was 70 degrees this morning and not expected to get above 92 this afternoon. Back to the 100s rest of the week though. :rolleyes:

Every time I see dark clouds up here, it takes on a whole new meaning as these Tornado sirens all over town remind me.

Yes sir, been in OKC for softball tournaments when those sirens go off! Sort a grabs your attention, does it not?!

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Some of the same fools will come on here the next big snow storm we have and say " Some Global warming we have here.." You know who they are. The same ones you heard spout off about it in the winter... Facts are we have had the Hottest 10 years on record. Some people need to open thier eyes and look at the facts that keep compounding . Global warming might just be someone tapping you on your shoulder.
:thinking:

http://i1031.photobucket.com/albums/y375/jmardant/hell.jpg

:eek: :eek:

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by garciap77
http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd185/garciap77/AlbaDM2604_468x597.jpg

;) http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss162/bgbikinis/bikini-girls.jpg


Summertime... it can never be too hot!!
:D

[Trashman]

OMG....Can't believe you people are still arguing about this.....Oh..wait a minute...Yes I can.:D

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by Trashman
OMG....Can't believe you people are still arguing about this.....Oh..wait a minute...Yes I can.:D who can argue with this....



http://i994.photobucket.com/albums/af64/ravulaudaykiran/bikini-girls-29.jpg

If the globe gets too warm just jump in the water.:D

[BILLYFRED0000]

sides it was a whole lot hotter in 80 than this year that is for sure. 60 straight days of 100 and dallas hit 113. woo hotcha momma.

[44INAROW]

Excuse me LE DAD - you gave you permission to post my pictures on the internet? :eek: :D

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by 44INAROW
Excuse me LE DAD - you gave you permission to post my pictures on the internet? :eek: :D Sorry 44, but it was all in support of the cause.:D



A warmer globe....

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y33/zaramire/webpics/pretties/hot-bikini-models-9.jpg

Is that really a bad thing:confused:


Thanks for the pics, sorry I couldn't use the "others" Photobucket got em...http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm119/godgia/vcvbcvb.jpg


:eek: :eek:

[garciap77]

Originally posted by Trashman
OMG....Can't believe you people are still arguing about this.....Oh..wait a minute...Yes I can.:D

¡Si, Se Puede!

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd185/garciap77/carmen-electra-wallpapers-5.jpg


:D

[garciap77]

Originally posted by 44INAROW
Excuse me LE DAD - you gave you permission to post my pictures on the internet? :eek: :D

:eek: :eek: :eek:

[sinfan75]

Summer ain't over! How can you claim it as the hottest! Just wonderin. But that girl on the fence could sure win the vote for hottest summer!:D