hot off the presses

founder of weather channel vs current CEO of weather channel

[youtube]dXhb3H2oRhQ[/youtube]



Edited by ricecrackers: 3/11/2014 01:01:24 PM

typical of the warmist cult. Their collective inability to discern fact from fiction, honesty from liars who benefit from their ignorance.

they'd rather trust the slimeball CEO who comes on afterward

no coincidence that weather channel is now owned by Bain Capital. Chief beneficiaries of the alarmism and benefactors of the the US Democrats. They also own MSNBC which is also full of geek alarmist nutjobs.

typical of the warmist cult. Their collective inability to discern fact from fiction, honesty from liars who benefit from their ignorance.

they'd rather trust the slimeball CEO who comes on afterward

no coincidence that weather channel is now owned by Bain Capital. Chief beneficiaries of the alarmism and benefactors of the the US Democrats. They also own MSNBC which is also full of geek alarmist nutjobs.

Weather Channel, not 'Climate Channel'.

All arguments are moot

hot off the presses

founder of weather channel vs current CEO of weather channel

Edited by ricecrackers: 3/11/2014 01:01:24 PM

I liked the conspiracy bit and how all the scientists are in on it because that's how they get government funding.

Is that all the other scientists in countries that aren't in America as well?

[size=8]Also liked crackers calling the 2nd bloke (who was far more polite and reasonable) as a slimeball.[/size]

I liked the conspiracy bit and how all the scientists are in on it because that's how they get government funding.

Is that all the other scientists in countries that aren't in America as well?

Also liked crackers calling the 2nd bloke (who was far more polite and reasonable) as a slimeball.

18 years of no warming

really?

yup

really? :-k

you're a complete lost cause if you cant spot that even without being informed of his conflict of interest...which i've done but that's also gone way over your head

yup

the evidence is in this thread

however, given this is a serious problem for the alarmists it would not surprise me at all if the billions of dollars has rushed out a response to these facts with some convincing revisionist bullshit

really?

And, you post evidence in this thread?

Ricey, you're brilliant... When Robin Williams died I was wondering where the next king of comedy was going to come from... But you... YOU... Out of the ball park man, you smashed it.

I assume the UN are in on the scam - because their scientists (obviously in the pay of sinister forces) say that 13 of the 14 warmest years on record occured in this century... This from an article published in that notorious rag of the ruling classes, the Guardian...

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/24/warmest-years-record-un-global-warming

Ricey, you're brilliant... When Robin Williams died I was wondering where the next king of comedy was going to come from... But you... YOU... Out of the ball park man, you smashed it.

I assume the UN are in on the scam - because their scientists (obviously in the pay of sinister forces) say that 13 of the 14 warmest years on record occured in this century... This from an article published in that notorious rag of the ruling classes, the Guardian...

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/24/warmest-years-record-un-global-warming

Global warming 'pause' explained

In general, scientists are a pretty mild and inoffensive bunch. But over the last decade, one specific group of scientists has come in for a lot of criticism. So let's dive into the topic of 'the pause in global warming'.

In the USA, the Wall Street Journal wrote, "temperatures have been flat for 15 years - nobody can properly explain it."

Another newspaper from the same stable, the UK Daily Mail wrote "global warming 'pause' may last 20 more years, and Arctic sea ice has already started to recover". Both of these statements are very reassuring, but unfortunately, very very wrong.

With regard to this 'pause', there are two major claims made by those who deny the science of climate change.

The first one is that the climate is actually cooling - not warming. This is incorrect.

The second claim is that after some previous warming, the global climate is now constant, and neither warming nor cooling. In other words, that the climate is in a kind of holding pattern, or haitus. This is also incorrect.

So let's look at the claim that the surface temperatures have not increased since 1998.

But first, why the year 1998? Why not 1997, or 1999?

It turns out that the year 1998 was a very, very hot year. It took until 2005, and then 2010, until we had hotter years. The year 1998 was very hot due to a few factors. The major factor was that 1998 was the most severe example of an El Niño year for over a century.

El Niño?

In the Pacific Ocean, there is a repeating pattern of El Niño events and La Niña events. El Niño years are hotter, and here the Pacific Ocean releases its heat to the atmosphere.

On the other hand, La Niña events are cooler, and here the Pacific Ocean sucks heat from the atmosphere.

You can see how this could affect the global climate, especially when you consider that by itself, the Pacific Ocean is bigger than all the land masses on Earth added together.

Let me get back to 1998. In that severe El Niño year, the Pacific Ocean dumped about 42 zetajoules of energy into the atmosphere. (By the way, "zeta" means "1" followed by 21 zeros, so it's a really big number).

To put that into perspective, each year, the human race generates about half-a-zetajoule of energy in its power stations. The amount of heat energy that the Pacific Ocean released into the atmosphere in 1998 was about 80 times more than the energy generated by the human race in that calendar year of 1998.

So for a while, 1998 topped the charts for the hottest year on record.

We then had record-breaking heat waves in Europe in 2003. In 2010, the hottest year so far, the record-breaking summer heat and fires were responsible for the deaths of 50,000 people in Russia.

This was followed by record-breaking heat waves in the USA in July 2012, and in Australia in January 2013. Globally, in 2014, we had the hottest May and June ever on record, and the equal-warmest April. And let's not forget that 13 of the 14 warmest years on record have happened in the 21st-century.

Let me also point out that the hottest years on record ever, 2005 and 2010, happened during a La Niña-dominated period - when you would expect cooling.

So it's very wrong to claim that surface temperatures are cooling. It's also very wrong to claim that surface temperatures are constant. The climate is still heating up.

What is causing this heating? Various greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide trap the incoming energy from the Sun. The greenhouse gases let the Sun's energy enter the atmosphere, but stop some of it from leaving. The amount of extra heat trapped in the atmosphere by these greenhouse gases is equal to the energy released by some 400,000 Hiroshima atom bombs each day.

The current carbon dioxide levels are about 40% higher than they were in the 19th century. They are also at their highest levels for the last 800,000 years. Indeed, over the last 800,000 years, carbon dioxide levels stayed within the range of 170 - 280 ppm until the Industrial Revolution.

That makes the sudden recent jump to 400 ppm over the last two centuries really quite astonishing. In fact, in the year 2013, the carbon dioxide levels grew at the fastest rate ever measured since reliable global records began.

So why all the talk about the pause in climate warming? It turns out that if you try really hard to mangle the data, and cherry pick very skillfully, you can make a case — and I'll put that side of the argument together, next time…

Ricey, you're brilliant... When Robin Williams died I was wondering where the next king of comedy was going to come from... But you... YOU... Out of the ball park man, you smashed it.

I'm back, with the controversial topic of the so-called 'pause' in global warming. Some parts of the news media incorrectly claim that the climate is no longer warming, but is actually cooling. They get to this conclusion by everything from cherry-picking the data, all the way up to telling big fat fibs.

By way of complete contrast, early in 2014, the two most august scientific institutions in the United Kingdom and the USA issued a joint report entitled Climate Change: Evidence And Causes.

These two bodies, the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences, warned that "climate change is more certain than ever."

Their accurate data shows that the climate, as measured by surface temperature of air and water, is still getting hotter.

But this average global temperature is not the only measure of climate change. There are other indicators that inform us about the state of the global climate.

They include the volume of the Arctic sea ice (which has been shrinking), snow in the Northern Hemisphere (also shrinking) and glaciers (more shrinking).

In the oceans we measure the sea level (which has been rising as an accelerating rate), the amount of heat stored in the ocean (which has been increasing), the sea surface temperature (the last decade is the warmest), and the air temperature over the ocean (also going up).

In the atmosphere, we measure specific humidity (which has been climbing along with the rising temperatures) and temperatures in the lower troposphere, which is the bottom 17 to 20 kilometres of the atmosphere (also rising).

Finally we have air temperature immediately over the land. It turns out that the first decade of the 21st century is the hottest decade since we began thermometer-based records in the 1850s, and yes, each of the last four decades has been hotter than the previous one. This astonishing trend of air temperature heating despite the fact that only a few per cent of all of the heat from global warming goes into heating the air — 93 per cent of the heat goes into the ocean.

There are very many other lines of evidence of global warming. Ice loss in Greenland and the Antarctic is accelerating. Both high altitude jet streams and the tropical weather bands are creeping from the equator to the poles at about five kilometers a year — about 500 kilometres per century.

Worldwide, on average, the seasons are shifting their timing, and the growing periods are changing. Plants are moving to higher and cooler altitudes, and they're now blooming earlier than at any time in the last 240 years.

These changes are all directly due to the huge amount of global warming energy being dumped into the environment (roughly the energy output of 400,000 Hiroshima-size bombs, every day).

With more energy in the climate system, the 'pendulum' of temperature now swings more vigorously. So another result of global warming is that temperature extremes are more frequent. The climate models agree with the observations — there are twice as many record hot days as there are record cold days.

So with all this evidence of continued heating, what exactly is this supposed 'pause'?

Just have a look at the global climate temperature record from 1970 onwards. It's climbing upwards, even though it's bumpy — which is reasonable, considering how many factors can influence the global temperature in the shorter time.

There's an upward bump in 1998 from the biggest El Niño for a century, and a downward bump half-a-decade earlier from the Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption. But overall, on average, the temperature trend is upward at a fairly constant rate until around 2005. From then on, the temperature keeps rising, but at a lesser rate.

So the 'pause' is a slowing in the rate of increase of heating. The temperature is still clearly rising after 2005 — after all, 2010 stands as the hottest year on record. But the temperature is rising at a slower rate.

How do the climate scientists interpret this?

First, this nine-year window of time (2005 till the present) is a very short time. The 'noise' in the global mean temperature is so large that you really need at least a 17-year window to clearly see a trend. This background 'noise' includes effects such as El Niño, La Niña, volcanoes, solar variability and so on.

Under normal circumstances, the climate scientists would simply say that nine years is too short a time, because it's not the statistically significant 17 years.

Second, it turns out that the surface temperature record excludes the Arctic — but this is the fastest warming region on the planet. This has biased the data.

And third, there is a whole bunch of other factors, which I'll discuss, next time ...

1. Robin Williams didnt 'die'. he killed himself

2. Whether its true or not that 13 of the 14 warmest years 'on record' (what is that 100 years?)... assuming its true its irrelevant because the warming has stopped for the past 18 years despite more CO2 going into the atmosphere. this FACT entirely sinks the AGW argument.

3. are you trying to tell me out of sarcasm that The Guardian is the publication of the people? not influenced, bought and paid for by corporate interests? are you trying to tell me that? :lol: that it isnt corporate media? :lol:
another lost cause, such naivety

Just when we think you can't get any better - you surpass yourself.

Cherry picking data, sounds right up your alley ricey.

-PB