Can't take much more of this global warming

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

LE...
Are you seriuosly trying to sell that there are not:
1. bogus claims in the MMGW movement
2. the scientists that make their living off of MMGW grants have no motivation

Pobody's nerfect, so I won't discuss the movements, just the arguments.

Since you are a "scientist" (Actually, you're an engineer, and a very good one, correct?) I'll express my arguments this way:

[accuracy of science behind case for AGW] > [accuracy of science against AGW]

[corrupting influence of research grants] << [corrupting influence of oil money]

[integrity of science process and scientists]/ [integrity of backers of status quo] = infinity, because the denominator is so close to zero

[OutOfControl]

[QUOTE=Lake-Effect;1435489]Some light reading about Polar Vortices.

Lake-Effect, you lost me when you started using Slate as a source of information. Biased much.

[Delfin]

[QUOTE=jackdale;1435482]

Originally Posted by Nicholson58

According to the USGS human CO2 emissions are 135 times all volcanic activity. In addition the volcanic activity is a net negative forcing. They lower temperatures. The Pinatubo eruption is clearly shown on Roy Spencer's site.

I wonder if you are able to read the chart you posted. If you can, you might note that the satellite trailing average 13 month temperatures for the planet are .27 degrees warmer than those in 1980. .27 degrees. Do you know what .27 degrees means for the planet and do you know what the IPCC predictions for temperature increases were over this period?

Amazing.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Pobody's nerfect, so I won't discuss the movements, just the arguments.

Since you are a "scientist" (Actually, you're an engineer, and a very good one, correct?) I'll express my arguments this way:

[accuracy of science behind case for AGW] > [accuracy of science against AGW]

[corrupting influence of research grants] << [corrupting influence of oil money]

[integrity of science process and scientists]/ [integrity of backers of status quo] = infinity, because the denominator is so close to zero

Since the first premise is clearly incorrect based on the failure of the models touted by proponents of AGW, the rest of the argument collapses.

Check back when you have a model that works.

[jeanathon]

Yawn... Another crisis afferted people the polar vortex has moved on to Greenland.
Blame it on global warming, or blame it on global cooling. Either way it doesn't matter because it has moved on.
Now let's whip ourselves into a frenzy over our imminent demise from bird flu or whatever is the current terror of the month.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jeanathon

Now let's whip ourselves into a frenzy over our imminent demise from bird flu or whatever is the current terror of the month.

You NAILED the issue Amigo.
There is a reason for the saying, "If it bleeds it Leads".

What better story line to sell than Godzilla coming out of the Bay...opps....wrong movie...what better to sell than Man causing the end of the world.

[Red Sky]

Originally Posted by jackdale

"November's worldwide average was 1.40°F (0.78°C) higher than the 20th-century global average temperature of 55.2°F (12.9°C). It was the sixth warmest of any month since record-keeping began in 1880, marking the 345th consecutive month—more than 28 years—that temperatures were above the 20th century's average."



Global Temperature for November Was Hottest on Record



UAH data shows December as warmer than November.



Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, PhD

1880? 134 years? The Earth is around 4.5 BILLION Years old. To try to draw the conclusion that man is causing any climate change from that small of a sample is just plain ignorant. Drink some more of Al's Kool-Aid. In fact, I have some carbon credits I'll sell you, only a boat buck each and I'll send you a picture of the tree I plant in your honor.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by OutOfControl

<QUOTE=Lake-Effect;1435489]Some light reading about Polar Vortices.

Lake-Effect, you lost me when you started using Slate as a source of information. Biased much.

I did flag it as light reading. Besides, Delfin and 3rd Day are clearly bored, so I thought I'd try to outrage them up a bit.

Originally Posted by delfin

Since the first premise is clearly incorrect based on the failure of the models touted by proponents of AGW,

C'mon, buddy pick a direction. Heating or cooling? Wanta call another lifeline, if Dr Spencer no longer satisfies?

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I did flag it as light reading. Besides, Delfin and 3rd Day are clearly bored, so I thought I'd try to outrage them up a bit.



C'mon, buddy pick a direction. Heating or cooling? Wanta call another lifeline, if Dr Spencer no longer satisfies?

Not sure what you don't understand about my statement that the earth has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, so let me try again.

The earth has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age.

Interesting, however, for the last 17 years, it hasn't warmed at all, which is curious, what with the increase in CO2.

If you would like to know whether I think it is going to be warming or cooling in the future, I'll go with cooling. The 30 year cycle that has repeated for centuries has turned down, so I would expect colder conditions to prevail, and general warmist angst to prevail.

From another scientist who never got the memo on consensus in favor of AGW: Global Cooling is Here | Global Research

But as I have said before, by making so many ridiculous claims that have not come true, climate warriors like the elaborately credentialed Jackdale, as well as yourself, will either be proven to be dupes or solemn harbingers of doom soon enough, so we needn't dispute.

[Lake-Effect]

Study this one carefully:


Oh wait, you already have. Enjoy.

[senormechanico]

I'm going to do something a little more important than arguing with the global warming enthusiasts.
I'm going to borrow a neighbor's geiger counter and take a walk on our beach to see if we've gotten a "present" from Japan's Fukushima plant.

California apparently has.

Fukushima radiation hits San Francisco? (Dec 2013) - YouTube

Pick your political poison and don't blame me for 'bias'.

Radiation Hitting West Coast - Bing

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Study this one carefully:


Oh wait, you already have. Enjoy.

I love that....thanks for sharing LE.

[CatInHand]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

I'm going to do something a little more important than arguing with the global warming enthusiasts.
I'm going to borrow a neighbor's geiger counter and take a walk on our beach to see if we've gotten a "present" from Japan's Fukushima plant.

California apparently has.

Pick your political poison and don't blame me for 'bias'.

Radiation Hitting West Coast - Bing

Where's the video of him looking for radiation before the disaster? This is only useful if he's detecting levels above normal.

True facts about Ocean Radiation and the Fukushima Disaster | Deep Sea News

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Red Sky

1880? 134 years? The Earth is around 4.5 BILLION Years old. To try to draw the conclusion that man is causing any climate change from that small of a sample is just plain ignorant. Drink some more of Al's Kool-Aid. In fact, I have some carbon credits I'll sell you, only a boat buck each and I'll send you a picture of the tree I plant in your honor.

Everything worked really well for the past 400,000 years. CO2 levels fluctuated between 180 and 300 ppm. Natural cycles were place. Humans, our habitat and our diet evolved during this time.



What happened 250 years ago?

Since 1751 approximately 365 billion metric tonnes of carbon have been released to the atmosphere from the consumption of fossil fuels and cement production. Half of these fossil-fuel CO2 emissions have occurred since the mid 1980s. The 2010 global fossil-fuel carbon emission estimate, 9167 million metric tons of carbon, represents an all-time high and a 4.9% increase over 2009 emissions. The increase marks a quick recovery from the 2008-2009 Global Financial Crisis which had obvious economic and energy use consequences, particularly in North America and Europe.

Globally, liquid and solid fuels accounted for 75.8% of the emissions from fossil-fuel burning and cement production in 2010. Combustion of gas fuels (e.g., natural gas) accounted for 18.6% (1702 million metric tons of carbon) of the total emissions from fossil fuels in 2010 and reflects a gradually increasing global utilization of natural gas. Emissions from cement production (450 million metric tons of carbon in 2010) have more than doubled since the late 1990s and now represent 4.9% of global CO2 releases from fossil-fuel burning and cement production. Gas flaring, which accounted for roughly 2% of global emissions during the 1970s, now accounts for less than 1% of global fossil-fuel releases.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2010.ems

We have raised CO2 levels by 40% and messed with Mother Nature.

We can tell by isotope analysis that fuel fossils were the culprit. And we are the only species burning fossil fuels.

Yes CO2 levels have been higher in geological time, but not while humans inhabited the earth.

[CatInHand]

So this video is difficult to listen to because of the painfully loud beep, but he looks like he's saying that the area out of reach of the water has higher levels of radioactivity, but the water itself does not. How does that relate to radioactivity in the water now?