China endures worst cold wave in 140 years

[futurecurrents]

It's amazing how right the majority of climate projections were 30 years ago. The majority of papers back then predicted global warming and they were right.

Of course it was fairly easy to be. It was simply logical that an increase of CO2 would raise temperatures. Because CO2 is the most important long term greenhouse gas regulating earth's temperature.

BTW , temperature means that of the oceans as well as the air.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from fhl:

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 30, 2010

The Sky Still Isn't Falling --Top Ten Failed Global Warming Predictions

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2010/12/sky-still-isnt-falling-top-ten-failed.html

Some are not just stupid, they are stupid and funny. Like number 10.

10. The Silly Stuff- Those Global Warming Moonbats figure out ways to blame the dumbest things on global warming. I call it the official crazy list of things Moonbats say global warming causes. The list contains, Incredible shrinking sheep, Invasion of jellyfish in the Mediterranean, Surge in fatal shark attack, Boy Scout tornado deaths, Severe acne, Global conflict, Beer tasting different, Suicide of farmers in Australia, Bigger tuna fish,Longer days, Shorter days, Collapse of gingerbread houses in Sweden, Cow infertility, UFO sightings in the UK, Rise in insurance premiums, and Heroin addiction and a rise in bear attacks in Japan and Frigid Cold Winters in Great Britain, and Cancer, Death from heart disease, diabetes, stroke, respiratory disease and even accidents, homicide, suicide,water -borne disease outbreaks,heavier, wetter snowstorms treacherous for travel and ambulation, Lyme disease, swarms of allergy-inducing, stinging insects, along with mosquitoes and devastating pine bark beetle infestations and the spread of forest and crop pests just to name a few.

What's funny is that you think heavier, wetter snows, increased Lyme disease, mosquitoes, beetle infestations and the spread of forest and crop pest are NOT a result of GW. All of these things are already being observed and will get worse. Some of the other things are also plausible results of a warming world like the jellyfish invasions. No one ever predicted shorter/longer days. That's just proof of what a fraud the blogger is.

Funny and stupid........ yes you are. LOL

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from fhl:

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

New article in Nature laments the dismal failure of climate models

An article published today in Nature laments the dismal failure of climate models to predict climate a mere 5 years into the future, much less a century from now:
"The dramatic warming predicted after 2008 has yet to arrive."
"It's fair to say that the real world warmed even less than our forecast suggested,” [modeller] Smith says. “We don't really understand at the moment why that is.” “...........

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/07/new-article-in-nature-laments-dismal.html

There is no dismal failure at all. Five years is immaterial. The earth's temperature is following the hockey stick graph as predicted and the hockey stick has proven to be right multiple times by different studies. The total heat content of the earth has not paused in it's uptrend at all, only the air temps have.

 

[jem]

The 97% "Consensus" is only 75 Self-Selected Climatologists
The graphic below comes via our friends at [un]skepticalscience, assuring us that while 97% of "climate scientists think that global warming is 'significantly' due to human activity," a shocking 72% of news coverage does not reflect this "consensus" and similarly 74% of the public are not convinced.


However, close examination of the source of the claimed 97% consensus reveals that it comes from a non-peer reviewed article describing an online poll in which a total of only 79 climate scientists chose to participate. Of the 79 self-selected climate scientists, 75 agreed with the notion of AGW. Thus, we find climate scientists once again using dubious statistical techniques to deceive the public that there is a 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming; fortunately they clearly aren't buying it.


http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/08/97-consensus-is-only-76-self-selected.html

 

[jem]

the models have been a dismal failure.
co3 doubled and temps stayed the same.
Thus the models have failed.
Therefore there is no science showing man made co2 is causing warming.

The earth could very easily be cycling on its own.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

the models have been a dismal failure.
co3 doubled and temps stayed the same.
Thus the models have failed.
Therefore there is no science showing man made co2 is causing warming.

The earth could very easily be cycling on its own.

Ha ha ha ha. ................................................... You're an idiot.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

The 97% "Consensus" is only 75 Self-Selected Climatologists
The graphic below comes via our friends at [un]skepticalscience, assuring us that while 97% of "climate scientists think that global warming is 'significantly' due to human activity," a shocking 72% of news coverage does not reflect this "consensus" and similarly 74% of the public are not convinced.


However, close examination of the source of the claimed 97% consensus reveals that it comes from a non-peer reviewed article describing an online poll in which a total of only 79 climate scientists chose to participate. Of the 79 self-selected climate scientists, 75 agreed with the notion of AGW. Thus, we find climate scientists once again using dubious statistical techniques to deceive the public that there is a 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming; fortunately they clearly aren't buying it.


http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/08/97-consensus-is-only-76-self-selected.html

Wrong. .......97% and all the world's science orgs.........you're a fool of the highest order

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Ha ha ha ha. ................................................... You're an idiot.

And you're a heat and air installer. NOT a climatologist.

 

[jem]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Wrong. .......97% and all the world's science orgs.........you're a fool of the highest order

now you make a new lie about 97% of the worlds orgs...

you used to lie and say it was the world scientists.
you know damn well its not 97% of the world's science orgs.

 

[jem]

Its a cycle you idiot FC and you have no science saying man made CO2 is causes warming...

for instance...

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...-too-little-carbon-dioxide-will-destroy-earth


Study: Too Little Carbon Dioxide Will Destroy Earth

Do you want to save the planet? Fire up the SUV this holiday weekend and go for a pleasure ride; burn some more coal in your barbecue grill; crank up the house’s AC; and, generally, aspire to a Paul Bunyan-size carbon footprint. Because according to astrobiologist Jack O’Malley-James speaking at the National Astronomy meeting at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, life on Earth will suffer a carbon-dioxide-related extinction. But contrary to popular-culture belief, the problem will be too little of the naturally occurring gas.

It probably won’t ruin any of your plans, as this fate awaits us nearly billion years down the geological road, but the process by which life may end is rather simple. The Daily Mail reports:

[A]s the Sun ages and grows hotter, greater evaporation and chemical reactions with rainwater will take away more and more carbon dioxide.

In less than a billion years, its levels will be too low for photosynthesising plants to survive, say scientists. When that happens, life as we know it on Earth will cease to exist.

With the loss of plants, herbivorous animals will also die out, as well as the carnivores that prey on them.

At this point microbes will rule the Earth, though their days in the sun — pun intended — will likewise end. As the sun grows even hotter, the oceans will evaporate, making the planet inhospitable to all but the sturdiest micro-organisms. “Any remaining life will be restricted to pockets of liquid water, perhaps at cooler, higher altitudes or in caves underground,” says O’Malley-James.

While it’s probably hard to forecast weather for 1,000,002,013 A.D., many experts have pointed out that CO2 needs to hire a PR team, misunderstood and maligned as it is by global-warming proponents. For instance, Mike Adams of Natural News asks, “If CO2 is so bad for the planet, why do greenhouses pay to produce it?” He then offers the answer:

CO2 is a plant NUTRIENT.