AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: A Spectacular Failure: Latest HadCrut & NASA Temperatures Significantly Below IPCC Cl
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
C3 Headlines

EXCERPT:

Read here. Not only are U.S. temperatures below climate model predicted values, but global temperatures are also not behaving in the mode of the "consensus" IPCC climate models that represent the supposed 97% of scientists who say climate science is "settled." (click to enlarge charts)

[Image: 6a010536b58035970c01538f6ce0f7970b-pi]

LINK

==============================================================================================================
From here, Flooding due to record snows and second fastest decadal cooling period in the record not warming is this revealing chart:

Quote:So why is this not the result of global warming. WELL, BECAUSE WINTERS ARE COOLING....AT THE SECOND FAST DECADAL RATE OF ANY PERIOD SINCE 1895!!! (8.14F/decade or 81.4F per century! - only the decade ending in 1950 had a slightly greater cooling, a -0.85F/decade). This is true in the Missouri River basin and the country as a whole with a cooling of 4.13F per decade) Here is the winter trend the last decade for the NCDC North Central Regions over which the Missouri River flows - Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska.

[Image: Winter_NC_Temps.jpg]

When will CO2 haters admit that the tide has turned?

It is COOLING in every climate metric these days and that is undeniable.

Those past IPCC based modeled temperature projections are based on the AGW hypothesis.But as you can see.It is failing badly.

Epic fail actually.Since the projections based on actual past climate events.Indicate a distinct cooling trend for the next 50+ years.Maybe even into another little ice age?
When the money says to start harping on some other end of the world scenario.

It's the secular version of the Harold Camping prediction.
Cooling sucks.
Guess I picked the wrong time to become a nudist.
I see that BUZZ was hanging around looking into a few science threads.But leaves without a single comment.

Running out oil money bullcrap excuses?

S3

It is people like BUZZ,Matrix and many others who have irrationally hung onto the AGW hypothesis,that has been long shown to be a failure.Who are the ones in denial.

Notice the rare reply from them here and ZERO in my own forum? Could it be because they are beginning to see the reality?

I have pointed out the few IPCC projections/predictions failures in several forums.And still they serve up the moldy rationalizations.The excuses they come up with are straight out of kindergarten.They are often very stupid.

They can not accept the failure of the Tropospheric "hotspot" prediction (IPCC 2001).It is not there using empirical data.

They can not accept the failure of modeled temperature projections to year 2050 and to 2100 (IPCC 2001,2007).It has failed in the very first decade 2001-2011.

They can not accept the failure of the ocean warming projections,for the first decade 2001-2011.It is flat to a slight cooling trend.

They can not accept the failure of Hansen's 1988 3 scenarios paper (1988 Senate committee testimony).Shown to be very wrong by many reports.

They can not accept the failure to find the empirical evidence of positive feedback's outside of climate models.The evidence of negative feedback's are empirically shown to exist (Spencer)

They can not accept the failure of the error filled "hockey stick" paper surviving criticism made against it.Shown in several ways over the last 7+ years.

They can not accept the fact that a number of published science papers show that major CO2 changes lags major temperature changes by a few centuries.

They can not accept the failure of showing the recent warming trend from 1978-1998 as being unusually rapid.There have been two other very similar warming trends since the 1860's. (Hadcrut data)

The failure for AGW believing morons to drop the long invalidated AGW hypothesis.



(06-25-2011, 03:24 PM)Armadillo Wrote: [ -> ]Cooling sucks.
Guess I picked the wrong time to become a nudist.

S2

But it is now summer?

Hiney

Here's a pretty good polemic on Gore/AGW fear mongering. I think this guy's point is excellent, Gore can never succeed at this crusade because he hasn't joined it himself:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/w...-part-one/
A great line:

Quote:Gore can never succeed at this crusade because he hasn't joined it himself:

In my forum we have posted a few examples about Al Gore.In them I get the impression that he is a superficial thinker on the topic of global warming.

He habitually leave out a lot of "peer reviewed" relevant science information from his presentations.He also avoids personal scrutiny of staged debates and debating in blogs or forums.He prefers ONE WAY (from himself of course) presentations.Part of the time behind closed doors and away from the media.

The man has enormous conflict of interest and is a habitual hypocrite.He lies and distorts so often.It has become difficult to believe him on anything.

He does all this because he is a snake oil salesman.A Flim Flam man who can not take what he dishes out.A certifiable loser who lives on lies and immoral lifestyle.



Leftists thrive on promulgating panic, hysteria, anger and invented crises. Nearly all of them are hypocrites.
I posted this info on a nudist forum I visit. They believe on AGW and think it's bad, even thought GW would be good for nudists. Unfortunately the trend seems to be colder.
I'll see how they react. Might need SST to rock their world.
(06-26-2011, 11:18 PM)Armadillo Wrote: [ -> ]I posted this info on a nudist forum I visit. They believe on AGW and think it's bad, even thought GW would be good for nudists. Unfortunately the trend seems to be colder.
I'll see how they react. Might need SST to rock their world.

I do not think I will bare my soul in arguing with them.Besides SST sounds intimidating.Too German sounding.

S16



Maybe it would be received more favorably

if you joined that Nudist Board as "Sunsettummy".

S1
Or Sunsetbooty. lol.
Maybe JohnWho could educate them.
Your avatar may remind them of a gawker peeking through a hole in the fence.
Here is the response I got from posting SST info on the nudist forum.
Got a good reply?

Some naked guy Wrote:These graphs only show temperatures for a short period. My understanding is that climatologists don't consider a temperature shift to be a 'trend' unless it shows consistency over a period of about thirty years. It's also dangerous to look at too short a period because it becomes easy to cherry-pick a favourable section of the graph.
I looked around both these sites. They tend to rely a lot on one-off events for evidence, e.g. c3headlines.typepad.com points out that Mount Rainier has a lot of snow just now. 'Global Warming' doesn't mean that all parts of the planet will be consistently warmer at every time of every year. It means that over a long period, the average temperature of the planet is going up, even if in some years there is a bumper snowfall. However, even in the thirty or so years since I first visited the Alps, there has been a very noticeable loss in snow cover there. There is an excellent site allowing comparison over this period at http://www.swisseduc.ch/glaciers/big_melt/index-en.html
Which of SST's graphs did you post there, Dillo?

I would agree that short period "trends" should be looked at carefully. Remember - in the 1990's when the short 10 year trend was "warming", the CAGW supporters were using it to show what was happening and spread their alarmism. Now, when the last 10 years or so doesn't reflect such a warming trend, they claim that is too short a period to discuss a "trend". This hypocrisy drives those of us that don't accept the CAGW dogma crazy - they can "cherry pick" but we can't.

Also, point out (if you are using the "Actual Surface and Satellite Temperatures Well Below IPCC Predictions") that, in this case, the last 10 years or so actually is very significant. It clearly shows that not one of the IPCC predictions on "global warming" has been correct. They want us to act based on their recommendations even though they are clearly wrong.

That's worth at least a little "hmm" moment, is it not?

The CAGW crowd has stated that certain areas will see, for example, more snow or less snow, more hurricanes or less hurricanes, more sea ice or less sea ice, and similar. Quite often, what one of us "skeptics" will be showing is simply direct proof that their prediction was wrong - where they said there would be less snow is actually having more snow. I would not use this to show that the earth isn't continuing to warm since the end of the Little Ice Age, but I would use it to show that another one of their predictions is wrong.

Let's be honest here - at any given time there is a good chance half the places with snow cover have more than average and half have less than average. But when a specific area has been chosen by the CAGW folks as a "bell weather" area and it is doing the exact opposite of what they claimed would happen, I feel it is important to point out that they are wrong again.

Just my 2 cents.
Didn't I see somewhere that the latest glacier news in the Alps showed that the ice was coming back with a vengeance? Where did I see that?

Perhaps on the Anthony Watts site? I can't remember.
Thanks JW.
Copied and pasted.
That should have some naked AGW people scratching their... heads.
[Image: beerchug.gif]
Well, Dillo, I would think nudists would be more concerned

about cooling than warming.

(06-28-2011, 10:18 AM)John L Wrote: [ -> ]Didn't I see somewhere that the latest glacier news in the Alps showed that the ice was coming back with a vengeance? Where did I see that?

Perhaps on the Anthony Watts site? I can't remember.

A MUST READ: European climate, Alpine glaciers and Arctic ice in relation to North Atlantic SST record

Quote:These graphs only show temperatures for a short period. My understanding is that climatologists don't consider a temperature shift to be a 'trend' unless it shows consistency over a period of about thirty years. It's also dangerous to look at too short a period because it becomes easy to cherry-pick a favourable section of the graph.

Well he will have to argue with the IPCC who made it clear they believed that it was going to warm up around .20C in the first decade.

The chart is based on the IPCC reports.The observed temperatures from UAH and Hadcrut.

The "cherrypicking" claim he makes here fails to address the fact that for the first 10 years.The IPCC temperature modeling projections.Based on the AGW hypothesis,is failing quite badly.

Quote:I looked around both these sites. They tend to rely a lot on one-off events for evidence, e.g. c3headlines.typepad.com points out that Mount Rainier has a lot of snow just now.

There he goes.Going far away from the IPCC chart that disputes his very words he just wrote.

He made a sweeping statement about the two sites he saw for the first time ever.S2

CH3 Headlines post a lot of official data and post many references to published science papers.

ICECAP is run by a well qualified Meteorologist.Here he used NCDC temperature data for winter temps.He used the University of Colorado snow data.That clearly show an increasing trend of MORE snow.

Quote:Every one of the 8 regions has shown significant decadal scale cooling. Cooling results in a squeezing out of moisture from the air. All condensation is the result of a cooling not a warming process - water droplets condense on the outside of ICE WATER not HOT COFFEE.

this region was not alone. In fact all 8 US NCDC regions showed cooling the last decade in winters (PDF).

SNOW CHART

Global warming states the world will get WARMER over time.Even this dude says so:

Quote:'Global Warming' doesn't mean that all parts of the planet will be consistently warmer at every time of every year. It means that over a long period, the average temperature of the planet is going up, even if in some years there is a bumper snowfall.

LOLOLOL...

But that is not true.There has been NO warming trend since 1998.The peak year that has not been matched since.

Some Naked Guy is not a good reader.

Quote:Global Warming' doesn't mean that all parts of the planet will be consistently warmer at every time of every year.It means that over a long period, the average temperature of the planet is going up, even if in some years there is a bumper snowfall.

bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Yup a stupid rationalization that easily falls apart with a cursory examination.

A shabby attempt to explain away the WIDESPREAD snowfalls the last few years.

England for a time was 100% BURIED under snow during the last two winters.

Heavy snow in Eastern USA.Many area at record levels two years ago and still heavy in many of the same areas the very next year.

Supporters of AGW have been telling us for years.That snow would be less and less.Has he forgotten that? Remember how they made a big freaking deal about the poor snow cover in the winter Olympics in British Columbia? They pointed out as an example of what global warming would bring on us.

The average temperature has NOT been going up for the last 10 years.Try about zero

Quote:However, even in the thirty or so years since I first visited the Alps, there has been a very noticeable loss in snow cover there. There is an excellent site allowing comparison over this period at http://www.swisseduc.ch/glaciers/big_melt/index-en.html

A nice presentation shows the obvious ocean SST cycles effecting the growth or retreat of glacial ice.

Periodic ocean cycles have a strong effect on the expanding/retreating glacial ice.NOT CO2!
I'm not sure if that is it, but it will work. S1
Pages: 1 2