Heat goes on: Earth headed for warmest year on record

[377OHMS]

The Nazis tried to make an atom bomb. Thus, AGW is like the spread of Nazism in WW2. It must be stopped and requires similar levels of determination. The fight against global warming will be a huge and long lasting war.

Dumbest thing ever posted on ET. You are on a roll lately.

Thank goodness you aren't now or will ever be in charge of anything more than someones thermostat.

There is no AGW. There will be no war. Eventually people will realize that warmists must receive treatment similar to that we deal out to terrorists. It will be recorded by history as a cult.

 

[fhl]

Warm-ongers still trying to deny that global cooling was being sold in the 1970's.

Attempting to whitewash the whole decade's stories of 'a new ice age is coming, and it will kill us all, unless'.......

Repeating claims that it was only one magazine and few actual scientists.

"Only "a few"? Here's what the article (since retracted) reported --

Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view (emphasis added) that will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."




- See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-c...not-limited-single-story#sthash.49T2wNcJ.dpuf

 

[WeToddDid2]

Warm-ongers still trying to deny that global cooling was being sold in the 1970's.

Attempting to whitewash the whole decade's stories of 'a new ice age is coming, and it will kill us all, unless'.......

Repeating claims that it was only one magazine and few actual scientists.

"Only "a few"? Here's what the article (since retracted) reported --

Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view (emphasis added) that will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."




- See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-c...not-limited-single-story#sthash.49T2wNcJ.dpuf

Thanks for posting!

Another great quote from the article below:


"The world's food-producing system," warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA's Center for Climate and Environmental Assessment," is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago." Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climate change, or even to allay its effects.

 

[futurecurrents]

Dumbest thing ever posted on ET. You are on a roll lately.

Thank goodness you aren't now or will ever be in charge of anything more than someones thermostat.

There is no AGW. There will be no war. Eventually people will realize that warmists must receive treatment similar to that we deal out to terrorists. It will be recorded by history as a cult.

Of course there is AGW. What a ridiculous thing to say. Glad you like my humor.

 

[futurecurrents]

Warm-ongers still trying to deny that global cooling was being sold in the 1970's.

Attempting to whitewash the whole decade's stories of 'a new ice age is coming, and it will kill us all, unless'.......

Repeating claims that it was only one magazine and few actual scientists.

"Only "a few"? Here's what the article (since retracted) reported --

Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view (emphasis added) that will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."




- See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-c...not-limited-single-story#sthash.49T2wNcJ.dpuf

You are an idiot..

Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more cooling papers than warming papers (Peterson 2008).

Scientific Consensus
In the 1970s, the most comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…"

This is in strong contrast with the current position of the US National Academy of Sciences: "...there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action." This is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom.

In contrast to the 1970s, there are now a number of scientific bodies that have released statements affirming man-made global warming. More on scientific consensus...

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• Environmental Protection Agency
• NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
• American Geophysical Union
• American Institute of Physics
• National Center for Atmospheric Research
• American Meteorological Society
• The Royal Society of the UK
• Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
• American Association for the Advancement of Science

 

[TooOldForThis]

But it's 4 atom bombs per second. That's a lot.

No it's not. If it were a lot, temperatures would be rising at the same rate they did between 1970 and 1990. Instead, we have a "pause".

The world production of grain is about 160 Hiroshima bombs per second. I guess that's why we're getting so fat, LOL.

The Nazis tried to make an atom bomb. Thus, AGW is like the spread of Nazism in WW2.

WW2 lasted something like 8 years and the Nazis never controlled more than a tiny percentage of the planet. Industry has been producing CO2 from fossil fuels in fairly large quantities for about 100 years and it's world-wide. The Nazis failed quickly, fossil fuels are incredibly successful. And we're not even close to running out. Hundreds of years from now they'll still be burning vast amounts of coal.

It must be stopped and requires similar levels of determination. The fight against global warming will be a huge and long lasting war.

You already lost the (propaganda) war. The Nazis had the advantage of having a well established chain of command. The greenies are all over the place. And what plays well in the newspapers are the most extreme threats and predictions. So when Oppenheimer told us in 1990 that unless we curbed our use of fossil fuels the US and Eurasia would be devastated by drought by 1995 it made a lot of news:

"[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots . . . [By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers," Michael Oppenheimer, published in "Dead Heat," St. Martin's Press, 1990.
Now the climate alarmists have learned their lesson and most of the dire predictions are for sufficiently far in the future that they will never have to eat their words. But humans aren't stupid. The rest of us look at the crap predictions from 20 years ago (when the big message was that "the science is settled") and since those predictions failed we don't trust the present predictions.

To get their stuff believed, the climate folks need to start making predictions that become true. This puts them in a bind. It's obviously impossible to make predictions over short time periods because no one can yet predict the weather. And if they make predictions for what is going to happen 50 or 100 years from now, then the rest of us will wait 50 or 100 years to see if their predictions are accurate. So the alarmists have shot their wad. They can no longer influence the global use of fossil fuels (not that they ever had much influence on it before) because they cried wolf. Instead, fossil fuels are cheap and their use continues to grow.

 

[futurecurrents]

No it's not. If it were a lot, temperatures would be rising at the same rate they did between 1970 and 1990. Instead, we have a "pause".

The world production of grain is about 160 Hiroshima bombs per second. I guess that's why we're getting so fat, LOL.



WW2 lasted something like 8 years and the Nazis never controlled more than a tiny percentage of the planet. Industry has been producing CO2 from fossil fuels in fairly large quantities for about 100 years and it's world-wide. The Nazis failed quickly, fossil fuels are incredibly successful. And we're not even close to running out. Hundreds of years from now they'll still be burning vast amounts of coal.



You already lost the (propaganda) war. The Nazis had the advantage of having a well established chain of command. The greenies are all over the place. And what plays well in the newspapers are the most extreme threats and predictions. So when Oppenheimer told us in 1990 that unless we curbed our use of fossil fuels the US and Eurasia would be devastated by drought by 1995 it made a lot of news:

"[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots . . . [By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers," Michael Oppenheimer, published in "Dead Heat," St. Martin's Press, 1990.
Now the climate alarmists have learned their lesson and most of the dire predictions are for sufficiently far in the future that they will never have to eat their words. But humans aren't stupid. The rest of us look at the crap predictions from 20 years ago (when the big message was that "the science is settled") and since those predictions failed we don't trust the present predictions.

To get their stuff believed, the climate folks need to start making predictions that become true. This puts them in a bind. It's obviously impossible to make predictions over short time periods because no one can yet predict the weather. And if they make predictions for what is going to happen 50 or 100 years from now, then the rest of us will wait 50 or 100 years to see if their predictions are accurate. So the alarmists have shot their wad. They can no longer influence the global use of fossil fuels (not that they ever had much influence on it before) because they cried wolf. Instead, fossil fuels are cheap and their use continues to grow.

Reading your whole post is a waste of time when you start with a mistaken premise. There is no pause at all in the heat gain of planet earth.

Next time start with a fact and I may bother to read the whole post.

 

[TooOldForThis]

There is no pause at all in the heat gain of planet earth.

I didn't say that there was a "pause in the heat gain". I said there was a pause in the temperature rise. The fact that you don't know the difference but are still willing to debate the subject is hilarious!

But the heat gain arguments are a retreat from the claims of the past 30 years. Before, they were telling us that the (air) temperature of the planet was going to rise. This failed and while they did "adjust" the temperature records to show somewhat higher temperatures, they were unable to goose them enough to match the predictions.

So now they're talking about "heat" in the oceans instead of "temperature" in the air. This is more convenient because heat in the ocean cannot be measured accurately, LOL. Of course few people (other than the true believers) are faked out by this. And because the ocean is a huge heat sink, the change in ocean temperatures they're talking about are minuscule. Tiny fractions of a degree; these sorts of changes can't possibly influence the climate.

Next time start with a fact and I may bother to read the whole post.

The reason your propaganda is so weak is that you don't understand the arguments of the other side. You're relying on emotion in your understanding and also in your assembly of the propaganda. The Nazis had the advantage of using professionals to create their propaganda. The Greenies don't have an Adolf so it's not possible for them to create effective propaganda; there's no chain of command. Any of them can say whatever they want. And it's too late to change this as you've got all your previous crap propaganda hanging around your neck. The IPCC can't do it because it has all the disadvantages of rule by committee.

 

[WeToddDid2]

Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are down to ‘natural variability’, says study

 

[WeToddDid2]

Duke website:

Global Warming More Moderate Than Worst-Case Models

A few excerpts:

DURHAM, N.C. – A new study based on 1,000 years of temperature records suggests global warming is not progressing as fast as it would under the most severe emissions scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
-----------------

The Duke-led study shows that natural variability in surface temperatures -- caused by interactions between the ocean and atmosphere, and other natural factors -- can account for observed changes in the recent rates of warming from decade to decade.
-----------

The researchers say these “climate wiggles” can slow or speed the rate of warming from decade to decade, and accentuate or offset the effects of increases in greenhouse gas concentrations. If not properly explained and accounted for, they may skew the reliability of climate models and lead to over-interpretation of short-term temperature trends.
----------

The researchers say these “climate wiggles” can slow or speed the rate of warming from decade to decade, and accentuate or offset the effects of increases in greenhouse gas concentrations. If not properly explained and accounted for, they may skew the reliability of climate models and lead to over-interpretation of short-term temperature trends.