16 years 9 months, crazy fast global warming

[futurecurrents]

I thought I convinced you with facts and data that California has suffered far long droughts in the past. We cycle through droughts tied to the tides like el nino and la nina.

We are living in a semi desert to desert out here. Only kooks blame this on man made co2.

Oh jerm you lying POS, you must have missed this part of the article. No one is talking about the current drought. The problem is the future droughts, disease and insects and heat waves. Asshole

""In the coming years, increased wildfire damage from climate change is expected nationwide because of "higher temperatures, widespread drought, earlier snowmelt, spring growth and expanded insect and disease infestations," according to a report from Headwaters Economics, an independent, nonprofit research group.The U.S. Forest Service says changing climate will be the reason behind "at least a doubling of area burned by the mid-21st century."

 

[futurecurrents]

OMG, no, not appeal to experts!!

The horror!!! :eek:



I can just see this dipstick at the cardiologist. LOL

 

[jem]

you ignorant lying troll moron... you really prefer to be ignorant and lie over learning anything.
just do a google check and learn something.
El nino warms the oceans and the earth and brings the rain in Southern California.
It looks like an El nino is happening by the way because my brother in law told the fish are running right now because the water warmed up early.
it might have been blues...

Oh jerm you lying POS, you must have missed this part of the article. No one is talking about the current drought. The problem is the future droughts, disease and insects and heat waves. Asshole

""In the coming years, increased wildfire damage from climate change is expected nationwide because of "higher temperatures, widespread drought, earlier snowmelt, spring growth and expanded insect and disease infestations," according to a report from Headwaters Economics, an independent, nonprofit research group.The U.S. Forest Service says changing climate will be the reason behind "at least a doubling of area burned by the mid-21st century."

 

[jem]

 

[jem]

when I was surfer we heard tales of very big waves in the old days when the el nino would hit. Back when it was really warm in the 30 and 40s.

 

[futurecurrents]

you ignorant lying troll moron... you really prefer to be ignorant and lie over learning anything.
just do a google check and learn something.
El nino warms the oceans and the earth and brings the rain in Southern California.
It looks like an El nino is happening by the way because my brother in law told the fish are running right now because the water warmed up early.
it might have been blues...

Oh jerm you lying POS, you must have missed this part of the article. No one is talking about the current drought. The problem is the future droughts, disease and insects and heat waves. Asshole

""In the coming years, increased wildfire damage from climate change is expected nationwide because of "higher temperatures, widespread drought, earlier snowmelt, spring growth and expanded insect and disease infestations," according to a report from Headwaters Economics, an independent, nonprofit research group.The U.S. Forest Service says changing climate will be the reason behind "at least a doubling of area burned by the mid-21st century."

 

[futurecurrents]

BTW jerm, you deranged liar, do you finally admit that the recent 40% increase in CO2 is from man? Or are you still sticking to the absurd lie that it is not.

Here's another look at the historical record. Get someone to tell you what it means.

 

[jem]

did'nt answer the question?
see this sentence FC....

"there is no relationship between the fossil carbon emissions curve and the annual carbon increase curve."




http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/08/...emperature-is-driving-co2-and-not-vice-versa/

The shape of the annual carbon increase resembles the shape of the global sea surface temperature (HADSST3), especially after reliable CO2 measurements began by Keeling after March 1958. Several known events are visible. Counting backwards: the 1998 El Niño, the 1994-5 El Niño, Mt Pinatubo in 1991, the 1986-7 El Niño, Mt Ruiz in 1985, El Chichon eruption in 1982, the 1972-3 El Niño, etc. Every positive peak is an El Niño and every negative peak is associated with a major volcanic eruption.

As can be seen in Figure 1, there is no relationship between the fossil carbon emissions curve and the annual carbon increase curve. That is because all the fossil emissions carbon is taken up by the biosphere or by the oceans according to Henry’s Law, and then sequestered there. The carbon in the atmosphere is controlled by temperature. This has been described by Dr. Murry Salby in this presentations at Sydney and Hamburg. He compares the CO2 curve to the integral of temperature. Here, I am going the other way mathematically, taking the differential of the CO2 curve as temperature and comparing it to known temperature data, the HADSST3 data.

- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/08/...-co2-and-not-vice-versa/#sthash.gBOX3Ftl.dpuf[/QUOTE]

 

[futurecurrents]

did'nt answer the question?
see this sentence FC....

"there is no relationship between the fossil carbon emissions curve and the annual carbon increase curve."




http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/08/...emperature-is-driving-co2-and-not-vice-versa/

The shape of the annual carbon increase resembles the shape of the global sea surface temperature (HADSST3), especially after reliable CO2 measurements began by Keeling after March 1958. Several known events are visible. Counting backwards: the 1998 El Niño, the 1994-5 El Niño, Mt Pinatubo in 1991, the 1986-7 El Niño, Mt Ruiz in 1985, El Chichon eruption in 1982, the 1972-3 El Niño, etc. Every positive peak is an El Niño and every negative peak is associated with a major volcanic eruption.

As can be seen in Figure 1, there is no relationship between the fossil carbon emissions curve and the annual carbon increase curve. That is because all the fossil emissions carbon is taken up by the biosphere or by the oceans according to Henry’s Law, and then sequestered there. The carbon in the atmosphere is controlled by temperature. This has been described by Dr. Murry Salby in this presentations at Sydney and Hamburg. He compares the CO2 curve to the integral of temperature. Here, I am going the other way mathematically, taking the differential of the CO2 curve as temperature and comparing it to known temperature data, the HADSST3 data.

- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/08/...-co2-and-not-vice-versa/#sthash.gBOX3Ftl.dpuf

[/QUOTE]

Ha ha ha Salby. The fraud and fool.

SoTrickZone ha ha. Bullshit propaganda website. Why can't you use reliable sources. You're such a deluded right wing asshole.

This is proof man made carbon emissions is causing the temps to rise jerm. You lying sack of shit.

 

[futurecurrents]

I found that a blogger (notrickszone) by the name of Pierre Gosselin posted rebuttals to my presentation.

He indicates that he is an American with a B.S. in mechanical engineering, works in Germany and has an interest in meteorology. I honestly did not find his rebuttals helpful in improving my presentation. For example, there were the typical attack on Mann's work and a reference to urban heat island effects. Both have been thoroughly addressed in the peer-reviewed literature and yet continue to crop up on skeptic sites. Similarly, the fact that the sun is not the culprit has been proven in many peer-reviewed journal articles. There were also the personal attacks and name-calling: questioning how I ever got my Ph.D. (for the record, a portion of my dissertation work was published in the respected, peer-reviewed ASME Journal of Heat Transfer) and calling me an "armageddonist." I guess that's stronger than "alarmist." (He also called me "slippery." )


I will continue to point out to people that if you call attention to something that is genuinely alarming, then you're not an "alarmist." Further, my research work and most of my presentations focus on solutions, so while "doom and gloom" makes for a nice label, it's not representative of my position. I believe that a combination of renewable energy, nuclear power, and land use changes can help us avoid the worst effects of global warming, and I was a co-author of a peer-reviewed journal article (in Environmental Science and Technology) along with Jim Hansen and two others describing the various solutions. I only put together the rebuttal to skeptic arguments in response to a special request by our local state legislature representative.

Frankly, I'd like to see that presentation - inverted.
Rather than showing the distortion then the facts, show the facts then the dustortions.
The community spends far to much time explaining the errors in what TVMOB, Watt$, McIntyre and the other stooges say - and to little time exposing their corruption.
0 0
Riccardo at 06:54 AM on 20 February, 2012
Chuck Kutscher
I think you can safely ignore this Pierre Gosselin, there's really nothing worth our time in his "rebuttal". The wording of the title (armageddonist, alarmism) already shows the ascientific nature of his rambling and the propaganda-based style. Let's ignore him.