Second Coldest Spring In U.S. History

[Lucrum]

Quote from jem:

...First of all there is no science that can currently accurately model weather more than a few days out.

And even then they get it wrong.

So after that its all guess work and feel.

Same with CO2 forcing....

An irrefutable point, which has been made before.

 

[VVV1234]

Quote from pspr:

Maybe you should go spend more time playing basketball and less time arguing with people more knowledgeable than yourself on the Internet.

You're obviously an unemployed bum with mental problems. Your 24/7 postings on ET suggest a peculiar OCD. I have no interest in entertaining your nonsense.

Now, you are on ignore. Sayonara motherfucker!!

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from VVV1234:


Now, you are on ignore. Sayonara motherfucker!!

Hmmm, the last one to say "Sayonara" claimed he was leaving ET. Of course he was back within days. Even put me on ignore when I pointed out his chicken shit hypocrisy. Later disappeared when it was suspected he was the former Dr vodka aka Dr dickless.

L_Kabong boy or something like that wasn't it?

 

[pspr]

Quote from VVV1234:

You're obviously an unemployed bum with mental problems. Your 24/7 postings on ET suggest a peculiar OCD. I have no interest in entertaining your nonsense.

Now, you are on ignore. Sayonara motherfucker!!

Ha ha ha ha ha. What, I don't get threatened to come to New York and get beaten up?

Futurecurrents, did you see this? Now that is what you should do. Just call me a few names and run like the wind.

 

[jem]

Quote from Lucrum:

An irrefutable point, which has been made before.

yes... I saw a pilot make that point once.

 

[jem]

hey fc (you troll) and ricter....

do you get... what you just read.

100% of climatologists agree there is no way to say man made C02 can be shown to cause warming on earth.

Quote from pspr:

That sort of throws the entire AGW science predictions right down the rat hole.

 

[jem]

I will post it again for the troll and ricter.

Quote from jem:

http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/01/global-cooling-timing-and-amountnh.html

2.Very Unreliable Climate Forecasts - Modelling.

The entire IPCC - Al Gore CAGW paradigm relies on the forecast of dangerous 21st century warming based on the projections (not, modellers are careful to say,predictions) of climate models. The outcome of models is not empirical data .The science is in the inputs i.e our knowledge ( often guesses and assumptions ) of the initial conditions and the physical processes at work on the initial state of the system as we can best establish it.
Science section IPCC AR4 WG1 8.6 deals with forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity. The conclusions are in section 8.6.4 which deals with the reliability of the projections.It concludes:

"Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections,consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed"
What could be clearer. The IPCC in 2007 said that we dont even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- ie we don't know what future temperatures will be and we can't calculate the climate sensitivity to CO2.This also begs a further question of what mere assumptions went into the "plausible" models to be tested anyway.
This quoted statement was ignored by the editors who produced the Summary for Policymakers. Here predictions of disaster were illegitimately given “with high confidence.” in complete contradiction to several sections of the WG1 science section where uncertainties and error bars were discussed. Almost all the worlds politicians, media and eco-activist organisations uncritically accepted and used these predictions as infallible guides to the futrure and acted on these delusions of certainty.

A glance at this Figure 2-20 From AR4 WGI shows immediately that the IPCC models are structurally obviously highly implausible. The only natural forcing is TSI and everything else is anthropogenic. For example under natural should come such things as eg Milankovitch orbital cycles,Lunar related tidal effects on ocean currents and all the Solar activity data time series - eg Solar and Earth magnetic field strength, TSI ,SSNs ,GCRs ,( effect on aerosols,clouds and albedo) CHs, MCEs, EUV variations, and associated ozone variations and Forbush events. Unless the range and causes of natural variation are known within reasonably narrow limits it is simply not possible to calculate the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on climate.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from jem:

hey fc (you troll) and ricter....

do you get... what you just read.

100% of climatologists agree there is no way to say man made C02 can be shown to cause warming on earth.

I guess 100% beats 97% huh?

 

[jem]

Quote from Lucrum:

I guess 100% beats 97% huh?

yep... since the science did not shake is brain ,.. I figured that was the best way to show it.

 

[wjk]

Looking at a radar w/ temps out of Mobile, AL at 7:39 CST Fri night. Temps plunging into the mid and upper 40's (behind a cold front) from Hattiesburg north. It's 55 now in Biloxi and Mobile. Biloxi is right on the Gulf. It's only interesting because it's not even dark yet, and it's May 3rd! More common in Mar, not May.

Record snowfalls for this late in the year occurred throughout the midwest. These could be signs of an approaching ice age. I've read that ice ages can develop in as little as a few centuries. In fact, I may have been taught that in school back in the 70's when cooling was the rage, not warming. Wouldn't it be ironic if they were right the first time?

Probably just coincidence (like the record cold around the N hemisphere this winter). Nothing to worry about.

Nature trumps Man.