Global warming LOL
- Thread starter John_Wensink
- Start date
Granddaughter? Does this mean I get to call you PaPaw?
As for the alarmists, it's August and of course, hot in Florida. However, it isn't any hotter than expected. I lived here for two years as a youngster, and it used to hit 96f constantly in August. We've not gone over 93f a single day in August where I live. I'm not sure what the average has been this month, but I'd say 91f at the hottest in north east FL.
Actually she's my step granddaughter but yeah you can call me PaPaw. She calls me Ha Daw, a left over from when she first stated talking.Quote from LEAPup:
Granddaughter? Does this mean I get to call you PaPaw?
I spend a lot of time with her and apparently she considers me her BFF.
She'd rather come to/go with me than her own mother.
Oh and today's high just north of ATL was 67 deg. Five deg below the original forecast.
Wow. Didn't know AGW was due to wealth transfers. Interesting.
No. Air temperature trends always go in straight lines because the only thing affecting them is CO2 level. The ENSO ocean cycles or high altitude aerosols have no effect. Haven't you been listening to jem?
Also, predicting what the global air temps would be now ten years ago was easy. It's as easy as predicting the weather. So if a prediction fails it's obvious that weather predicting is useless and we should throw all the science of meteorology out.
Get with the program. You need to start listening to jerm more. Because only a fanatical righty who judges everything according what the right is supposed to believe can have the right answers to science. Like the evolution hoax.
So jem. You pretend to be a smart guy. Why did Spency-boy use tropical mid-troposhere temps to judge models that are trying to model GLOBAL temperatures? Any ideas on why he might have done that? I'll give you some time to figure it out. We'll be waiting for your twisted - I mean brilliant - analysis.
I guess seeing 73 failed climate models caused you to blow a mental gaskit cause that was some very illogical crap.
Trying to paint my argument based on fact with with your illogical and emotional argumentation is not going to fool anyone.
The only science you had to show man made co2 was causing warming was / were... climate models which predicted warming. As you ironically point out... predicting climate 10 years out is ridiculous. Of course they failed to predict temperature.
That was not science it was a big leftist fleece the tax payer con game.
Trying to paint my argument based on fact with with your illogical and emotional argumentation is not going to fool anyone.
The only science you had to show man made co2 was causing warming was / were... climate models which predicted warming. As you ironically point out... predicting climate 10 years out is ridiculous. Of course they failed to predict temperature.
That was not science it was a big leftist fleece the tax payer con game.
There you go again, mixing science and politics. The science of GW has nothing to do with your paranoid fanatical politics.
But that's your argument. If a climate prediction did not predict something - that it was not expected to predict anyhow - then global warming science is totally wrong. It's an absurd argument that ignores the fact that CO2 has certain physical properties regardless of the forecasts of what a chaotic system like worldwide climate will do.
Anyhow, the climate models cannot be said to have failed. Perhaps if current atmospheric trends continue for another fifty years. But the models are always getting better. Future models will consider more parameters and will evolve and improve.
well first of all everyone used the statellite data these days... its apparently more accurate.
Next if you go here to look at the charts and trends of temps.
(don't give me the crap about the website... the data and the charts are data and charts... I would bet 100 dollars you won't find different data at nasa.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/10/a-big-picture-look-at-earths-temperature-2nd-quarter-2012/
you see that there are some lower trop temp trends a little higher than the mid trop buy you also see at least one with lower. (however the difference in trend per decade is part of 1 then of 1 percent... it is statistically meaningless. I gave you the link to the explanation in the past.
If I am lying find me the IPCC models which predicted no warming outside margin of error for the last 16 years.
I don't care if you use lower trop or no... we are talking about very small differences and almost no or no warming.
Does not matter which satellite data you use.
Next if you go here to look at the charts and trends of temps.
(don't give me the crap about the website... the data and the charts are data and charts... I would bet 100 dollars you won't find different data at nasa.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/10/a-big-picture-look-at-earths-temperature-2nd-quarter-2012/
you see that there are some lower trop temp trends a little higher than the mid trop buy you also see at least one with lower. (however the difference in trend per decade is part of 1 then of 1 percent... it is statistically meaningless. I gave you the link to the explanation in the past.
If I am lying find me the IPCC models which predicted no warming outside margin of error for the last 16 years.
I don't care if you use lower trop or no... we are talking about very small differences and almost no or no warming.
Does not matter which satellite data you use.