Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Global Temperatures Are Falling Like a Rock
I thought the warming of the globe was supposed to accelerate right about now. I guess the consensus scientists forgot to tell the Earth about that which cannot be disputed. In the past year, the global temperature has dropped by a consensus .6405°C. That C at the end means centigrade, so the temperature drop is over a full degree fahrenheit. In a year.
I think it's going to continue to go down for reasons I have stated in previous posts. Of course a single year's fall, even of this magnitude, is merely ephemeral weather. No one could extrapolate climate information from just a few years or even a few decades of information (even though that's just what the Warmies have done). However, they have these computer programs which show nothing but a steady rise in average global temperature and they want us to believe, as they do, that their computer models are infallible. So deviation from the computer models' predictions is right next door to refutation.
What's that phrase my son uses when he's being insufferable? Oh, yeah.
In your face, Warmies!
In your face, Warmies!
Labels: Global Warming Hoax
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 8:00 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Where are all the eco-stalinists when you need them...I'm just dying for someone like Prague Twin to come over here and debate the topic.
Man, oh man. When do you guys take this show on the road. C'mon please stop my stomach hurts.
Centigrade? Seriously??
. . . and the sunspot stuff? Killer!
Centigrade? Seriously??
. . . and the sunspot stuff? Killer!
Tony,
isn't that why it's called...."PERMA" frost, as opposed to, " Temporary melting because Owl Gore says it is " frost ?
LOL
isn't that why it's called...."PERMA" frost, as opposed to, " Temporary melting because Owl Gore says it is " frost ?
LOL
Tone, it was getting warmer in the north, in some spots warmer than others. Why is that fact any evidence of the theory that CO2 is causing it or the outright fraud that we are primarily responsible for the warming? It's just not. If the theory that ever rising CO2 must cause ever rising temperatures is not 'hurt' by a rapid fall in global temperatures, then it is no longer science but a mystical belief.
Andy, wow, what a well reasoned refutation! I know I doubt all my well documented facts now just from your derision. Thanks for putting me in my place.
Andy, wow, what a well reasoned refutation! I know I doubt all my well documented facts now just from your derision. Thanks for putting me in my place.
Roger,
I didn't refute anything, your arguments and well documented facts are self-refuting. I can only reach two conclusions when seeing you present your facts. Either you're a crackpot who completely misunderstands the science, or this is a comedy routine and we should be laughing at you.
When I see all of the posts and "arguments" you have made, I can't take you seriously. This post is no exception. When you start out by saying that you thought the warming should be accelerating by now, how can I NOT laugh. The data shows that average global temperatures ARE accelerating. Which source would you like me to use to refute your conclusions?
Start with this one -
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/global.html
Let's try a quote -
"seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001, part of a rise in temperatures of more than 0.6°C (1°F) since 1900. Within the past three decades, the rate of warming in global temperatures has been approximately three times greater than the century scale trend"
Also C = Celsius
If the temperature does not continue to go down as you predict, will you be back here to tell us that you were wrong?
Finally, Roger, I hope you're right. I hope that the temperatures are reversing. I have no vested interest in being a warmy. It's just that you don't present credible arguments to the contrary. when you bring up subjects that you yourself admit you don't understand (sunspots/flux), you don't help your credibility. BTW, most rational scientists have given up on the sunspot arguments.
Continued good luck, and I look forward to more good chuckles in your future "global warming hoax" posts.
I didn't refute anything, your arguments and well documented facts are self-refuting. I can only reach two conclusions when seeing you present your facts. Either you're a crackpot who completely misunderstands the science, or this is a comedy routine and we should be laughing at you.
When I see all of the posts and "arguments" you have made, I can't take you seriously. This post is no exception. When you start out by saying that you thought the warming should be accelerating by now, how can I NOT laugh. The data shows that average global temperatures ARE accelerating. Which source would you like me to use to refute your conclusions?
Start with this one -
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/global.html
Let's try a quote -
"seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001, part of a rise in temperatures of more than 0.6°C (1°F) since 1900. Within the past three decades, the rate of warming in global temperatures has been approximately three times greater than the century scale trend"
Also C = Celsius
If the temperature does not continue to go down as you predict, will you be back here to tell us that you were wrong?
Finally, Roger, I hope you're right. I hope that the temperatures are reversing. I have no vested interest in being a warmy. It's just that you don't present credible arguments to the contrary. when you bring up subjects that you yourself admit you don't understand (sunspots/flux), you don't help your credibility. BTW, most rational scientists have given up on the sunspot arguments.
Continued good luck, and I look forward to more good chuckles in your future "global warming hoax" posts.
I'm glad you chose that quote because it is false. The scientists who were 'adjusting' the numbers got it wrong and it turns out the four warmest years in
the past hundred were in the 1930s not since 2001. You'll have to do better than coughing up discredited junk science. Of couse I'll admit I'm wrong if it gets suddenly warmer and the warming is 'accelerating' But that fact is that it's about the same as it has been for a century in the southern hemisphere and it's slightly, imperceptibly warmer (1 Degree Fahrenheit) in 100 years up here in the North. More to the point, the RSS graph has been flat since 2000, flat that is before the recent sudden full degree decline this past year. I'll post on the misinformation you are trying to pass off as valid. And sorry about the Centigrade. That's what I learned in high school and, like most Americans, I haven't made the jump to the metric system and at my advanced age, I probably won't. So tell me, in January, 2009 what will the average of the four different 'satellite' measurements be? I'll make it simple. Above the average for 1979 to 2001? Or below it? Tell me the future, oh easily amused IT sage.
the past hundred were in the 1930s not since 2001. You'll have to do better than coughing up discredited junk science. Of couse I'll admit I'm wrong if it gets suddenly warmer and the warming is 'accelerating' But that fact is that it's about the same as it has been for a century in the southern hemisphere and it's slightly, imperceptibly warmer (1 Degree Fahrenheit) in 100 years up here in the North. More to the point, the RSS graph has been flat since 2000, flat that is before the recent sudden full degree decline this past year. I'll post on the misinformation you are trying to pass off as valid. And sorry about the Centigrade. That's what I learned in high school and, like most Americans, I haven't made the jump to the metric system and at my advanced age, I probably won't. So tell me, in January, 2009 what will the average of the four different 'satellite' measurements be? I'll make it simple. Above the average for 1979 to 2001? Or below it? Tell me the future, oh easily amused IT sage.
Rog,
The permafrost is melting. Mark can deny it if he wants but it is as undeniable as the fact that GA is undergoing a serious drought.
So I suppose the question is: Is the melting permafrost a local variation, i.e. parts of the north are growing warmer but such warming is offset by other areas becoming cooler. Or is the melting permafrost an indication of global warming?
T
The permafrost is melting. Mark can deny it if he wants but it is as undeniable as the fact that GA is undergoing a serious drought.
So I suppose the question is: Is the melting permafrost a local variation, i.e. parts of the north are growing warmer but such warming is offset by other areas becoming cooler. Or is the melting permafrost an indication of global warming?
T
# posted by 
: 9:04 AM
: 9:04 AM
"You'll have to do better than coughing up discredited junk science"
You see, that's the evidence I'm talking about that indicates that it's a comedy routine.
Let me get this straight. You believe the National Climatic Data Center of NOAA is distributing junk science? You claim that you've got the right figures and the governmental agency in charge of keeping these records doesn't? That gets you into crackpot territory.
What four years in the 30's are you talking about and where is your data? What I think you're talking about is the year 1934 which is the warmest year on record IN THE U.S!!! It has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GLOBAL AVERAGE. The quote I gave you came directly from NOAA. If you choose not to believe it that's fine, but you don't get to call it junk science, just because you disagree with it.
I admire your spunk. Push on Sisyphus.
You see, that's the evidence I'm talking about that indicates that it's a comedy routine.
Let me get this straight. You believe the National Climatic Data Center of NOAA is distributing junk science? You claim that you've got the right figures and the governmental agency in charge of keeping these records doesn't? That gets you into crackpot territory.
What four years in the 30's are you talking about and where is your data? What I think you're talking about is the year 1934 which is the warmest year on record IN THE U.S!!! It has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GLOBAL AVERAGE. The quote I gave you came directly from NOAA. If you choose not to believe it that's fine, but you don't get to call it junk science, just because you disagree with it.
I admire your spunk. Push on Sisyphus.
See above, Andy. And yes, I am saying the NOAA is getting it wrong because they are. Facts are stubborn things, indeed.
Tone, the melting permaforst appears to be hear and there but that might just be that hardly anyone lives up there and of the ones that do, we don't communicate well with them. I'm not denying it's warmer in the North. I'm just denying that we're primarily responsible for it. The most compelling thing in An Inconvenient Truth was the congruence of the CO2 record and the heat record from the Vostok station ice cores. Unfortunately the rise in atmospheric CO2 almost always followed the warming, sometimes by hundreds and thousands of years. Unless cause and effect have been reversed in past times, it would appear that CO2 does not cause warming but warming releases CO2 probably from the sea (and perhaps the permafrost). That would make the rise in CO2 recently irrelevant to climate predictions. I guess that was the tipping point for my thinking global warming was a hoax.
You too are on the list for a 2020 visit, it it's colder.
You too are on the list for a 2020 visit, it it's colder.
Darn if you're not persuasive. "NOAA is getting it wrong because they are". There was that so hard. I just wanted some simple data, but I don't need that because Roger just says "they are".
You wanted a prediction, so here is is:
Over the next month solar activity will increase as the warming cycle will aggressively return. Month after month temperatures will warm higher and higher. March will begin the trend, then April will be warmer still. May will see temperatures that in some cases will get downright uncomfortable. June, July, and August will see some sizzling shit. It won't be until mid-September that a moderation will occur, followed by steadily falling temps in the months that follow. January 2009 will be fuckin' cold!
Good luck with your data. You and Watt and Pielke Jr. are makin' the numbers work for you.
You wanted a prediction, so here is is:
Over the next month solar activity will increase as the warming cycle will aggressively return. Month after month temperatures will warm higher and higher. March will begin the trend, then April will be warmer still. May will see temperatures that in some cases will get downright uncomfortable. June, July, and August will see some sizzling shit. It won't be until mid-September that a moderation will occur, followed by steadily falling temps in the months that follow. January 2009 will be fuckin' cold!
Good luck with your data. You and Watt and Pielke Jr. are makin' the numbers work for you.
Rog,
One major problem w/ the permafrost melting is the enormous amount of CO that will be released when it does.
I do not think that human activity is sole responsible for climate change. Human activity is responsible for some climate change and given the fact that climate is a global system, change in one place will affect other places, however subtly.
The effects of human activity on climate change has been occurring for thousands of years. B/f the time of Homer, Greece was eden like. Then. during the Bronze Age, the Greeks deforested Greece to smelt Bronze and the deforestration turned what was an eden into something that more resembles a desert. This by way of example and not limitation.
T
One major problem w/ the permafrost melting is the enormous amount of CO that will be released when it does.
I do not think that human activity is sole responsible for climate change. Human activity is responsible for some climate change and given the fact that climate is a global system, change in one place will affect other places, however subtly.
The effects of human activity on climate change has been occurring for thousands of years. B/f the time of Homer, Greece was eden like. Then. during the Bronze Age, the Greeks deforested Greece to smelt Bronze and the deforestration turned what was an eden into something that more resembles a desert. This by way of example and not limitation.
T
# posted by : 10:29 AM
: 10:29 AM
Tone, enormous amounts of CO2 will be released from the ocean if it warms up a lot. Enormous amounts of CO2 will be released from the permafrost if the permafrost melting is enormous. I'm well aware, having read Jared Diamond's "Collapse" that if you cut down all your trees, you're doomed. We haven't cut down all our trees. In fact, there are many more trees now (although they are smaller) than, say, 1870 and probably since ever because we don't allow small fires in our forests. Too many trees perhaps.
We do have an effect on climate. Nearly everyting effects it, but it is a negligable effect which will get slightly larger and then smaller as the oil and coal run out and we go seriously nuclear and solar. The greatest allure for the left to embraces the dubious theory of global warming caused solely by capitalist commerce is that they are not fans of capitalist commerce in the first place. Watermelons.
There are trees in Greece now. I've seen 'em. It's hot in the Summer, but I wouldn't call it a desert.
Post a Comment
We do have an effect on climate. Nearly everyting effects it, but it is a negligable effect which will get slightly larger and then smaller as the oil and coal run out and we go seriously nuclear and solar. The greatest allure for the left to embraces the dubious theory of global warming caused solely by capitalist commerce is that they are not fans of capitalist commerce in the first place. Watermelons.
There are trees in Greece now. I've seen 'em. It's hot in the Summer, but I wouldn't call it a desert.
<< Home
