Take a look at all the records of climate change for 2013..

reply to post by 727Sky


I think a more telling story would be a listing of worldwide events as well as the severity of storms you did list. One other note, as to the ground my ear is on climate change... I haven't heard a word about this Al Gore thing; What does it tell you when no 'AGW' site is talking about it?

reply to post by 727Sky

The records are there for all to see and the links from where the records were compiled are listed.

And what do those records have to do with warming or the actual predictions of the results of warming? You can see what the IPCC actual has to say about extreme weather events here, in TFE9 which starts on page 72.
www.climatechange2013.org...

wtbengineer
reply to post by Phage

 

What I'm saying is that it takes a lot longer to establish a trend. I don't know where you get 60 years but I remember in the '70s we thought we were heading toward another ice age.

I posted this above:

There have been more global all time high records set since 1960 (73) than all time low temperature records (41).

Who is "we"? A couple of scientists that the MSM got all excited about?
Here is an interesting little search: "CO2 warming", prior to 1980:
scholar.google.com...

"CO2 climate":
scholar.google.com...

Kali74
reply to post by 727Sky

 

I think a more telling story would be a listing of worldwide events as well as the severity of storms you did list. One other note, as to the ground my ear is on climate change... I haven't heard a word about this Al Gore thing; What does it tell you when no 'AGW' site is talking about it?

I agree a world wide data set would have given a much better picture. Unfortunately Si only posted these numbers that I could see and post. With all the MSM news outlets 2013 seemed much worse than it appears it was.
The Al Gore was posted @ www.bloomberg.com...

President Barack Obama’s administration has said the U.S. is on track to meet a pledge of cutting heat-trapping gases by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020

“We’re likely to see the U.S. reduce emissions significantly more than that,” Gore said in a telephone interview yesterday. The pledge falls short of the 28-nation European Union’s target of a 20 percent cut from 1990 to 2020.

The former vice president plans a 24-hour broadcast starting Oct. 22 at 11 a.m. in Los Angeles to highlight the price humans are paying around the world because of carbon pollution. The show, entitled 24 Hours of Reality: The Cost of Carbon, will be streamed on his climaterealityproject.org website.

Coast to Coast just started and guess what (?) no less than an expert as George opened his broadcast with a report of what I started the thread with! hahaha Well at least a few know what the latest reported compiled data is showing !! hahah We can all relax the year ain't over yet

saintsfan
To believe that our ways of life for the last few centuries can actually impact this 4.5 billion year old planet is nothing short of egotism.

We could nuke life off this planet in less than a few hours if we wanted to. don't underestimate human ingenuity and stupidity for self destruction.

needs more doom ad gloom in your op.

My defence to global warming theorist is that as the icecaps melt it cools the oceans.

My defense to deniars is that if you dig into the earth almost anywhere you can see evidence of climate change.


Oh and just remember every time you fart you are hurting the earth so just dont do it put the beans away for a longer lasting world for our children!!!

Phage
reply to post by 727Sky

 

The records are there for all to see and the links from where the records were compiled are listed.

And what do those records have to do with warming or the actual predictions of the results of warming? You can see what the IPCC actual has to say about extreme weather events here, in TFE9 which starts on page 72.
www.climatechange2013.org...

edit on 10/18/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

The IPCC is not a credible source of unbiased scientific information as has been evidenced in the recent past. Weren't they proven to be fudging numbers, cherry-picking data, extorting other scientists by rescinding (or threatening to rescind) grants, using their network of onside choir boys and generally following a political agenda rather than a scientific agenda?"

And really Phage, your pontification concerning alleged climate change is beginning to sound a bit overzealous, bordering on religious fervor.

Cheers - Dave

saintsfan
To believe that our ways of life for the last few centuries can actually impact this 4.5 billion year old planet is nothing short of egotism.

Ah yes, 'tis why as a young lad there were big signs which said "NO SWIMMING ALLOWED" and "DO NOT EAT FISH", oddly enough though, many of the industrial and chemical companies which used to dump toxic waste into the great lakes all were pushed overseas, now operating in China. And coincidentally, it's safe to swim in the lakes again.

But no worries for them or us, because we aint big enough to hurt nothing. Just like a virus. Too small to see, too small to do damage.





www.ibtimes.com...

reply to post by bobs_uruncle

Weren't they proven to be fudging numbers, cherry-picking data, extorting other scientists by rescinding (or threatening to rescind) grants, using their network of onside choir boys and generally following a political agenda rather than a scientific agenda?"

No.

Try reading the report and the sources included before spouting recycled assumptions and myths.

Phage
reply to post by bobs_uruncle

 

Weren't they proven to be fudging numbers, cherry-picking data, extorting other scientists by rescinding (or threatening to rescind) grants, using their network of onside choir boys and generally following a political agenda rather than a scientific agenda?"

No.

Try reading the report and the sources included before spouting recycled assumptions and myths.

edit on 10/19/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Whatever you say Phage, if that's all you got, seriously you are beginning to sound more and more like a religious fanatic.

Yeah, we're doing it all, it has nothing to do with the Sun which supplies 99.998% of all the earth's incoming energy or the alleged nebula we are supposedly traveling into/through. No, SUV's, cow farts and carbon dioxide are changing the environment on Mars and Jupiter, yep, sounds reasonable to me. And carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases temperature, but actually carbon dioxide increases follow temperature increases. And water vapor isn't a problem even though it is considered the worst greenhouse gas. And if Al Gore taxes everybody to death (and we all know that new taxes fix everything because the governments are so efficient and not corrupt at all), there won't be no more carbon dioxide from humans, we'll all be dead.

Cheers - Dave

Phage
reply to post by bobs_uruncle

 

Weren't they proven to be fudging numbers, cherry-picking data, extorting other scientists by rescinding (or threatening to rescind) grants, using their network of onside choir boys and generally following a political agenda rather than a scientific agenda?"

No.

Try reading the report and the sources included before spouting recycled assumptions and myths.

edit on 10/19/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

As the discrepancies between models and observations increase, the IPCC insists that its confidence in the model predictions is greater than ever’ -’Support of global warming alarm hardly constitutes intelligent respect for the science of observations.
www.climatedepot.com... -ipcc-report-must-be-considered-the-grossest-misre/

After all these years, IPCC still doesn’t get it—we’ve been thawing out from the Little Ice Age for several hundred years but still are not yet back to pre-Little Ice Age temperatures that prevailed for 90% of the past 10,000 years. Warming and cooling has been going on for millions of years, long before CO2 could have had anything to do with it, so warming in itself certainly doesn’t prove that it was caused by CO2.’

www.climatedepot.com... s-found-that-they-violated-72-of-89-relevant-scientific-forecasting-principles/

Forecasting Experts Expose UN IPCC’s Climate Models: ‘Our audit of the procedures used to create the IPCC scenarios found that they violated 72 of 89 relevant scientific forecasting principles’ — Kesten C. Green, University of South Australia, is the Director of forecastingprinciples.com. J. Scott Armstrong, University of Pennsylvania, is editor of the Principles of Forecasting: ’The IPCC and its supporters promote these scenarios as if they were forecasts. Scenarios are not, however, the product of evidence-based forecasting procedures.

Top scientists call into question UN’s global warming study – ‘Results have been politicized’ — ‘Der Spiegel also notes that only 3 out of 114 climate models could actually reproduce the 15-year lapse in warming. This fact was completely omitted from what the UN reported to policymakers and the public.’

IPCC messed up along time ago with shoddy politically based science to get everyone on their band wagon... It is a shame really, for they could be like the boy who cried wolf one to many times.

reply to post by 727Sky

As the discrepancies between models and observations increase, the IPCC insists that its confidence in the model predictions is greater than ever’ -’Support of global warming alarm hardly constitutes intelligent respect for the science of observation

That's right. Just keep reading what deniers tell you about what the report says.
Good plan. Heaven forbid you should actually read it and try to understand it.

Phage
reply to post by 727Sky

 

As the discrepancies between models and observations increase, the IPCC insists that its confidence in the model predictions is greater than ever’ -’Support of global warming alarm hardly constitutes intelligent respect for the science of observation

That's right. Just keep reading what deniers tell you about what the report says.
Good plan. Heaven forbid you should actually read it and try to understand it.

edit on 10/19/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

And Phage, you can keep quoting DOGMA from the Church Of Al Gore LOL. You're a funny guy, I think you're just playing with us and you don't really believe any of that IPCC garbage.

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by bobs_uruncle

Yeah, we're doing it all, it has nothing to do with the Sun which supplies 99.998% of all the earth's incoming energy or the alleged nebula we are supposedly traveling into/through.

Tell me, with all your in depth research, how much has total solar irradiance changed in the past century?

reply to post by bobs_uruncle

I haven't paid any attention to Al Gore since...well...ever.
But he does make a nice straw man, I'll grant you that.

Phage
reply to post by bobs_uruncle

 

Yeah, we're doing it all, it has nothing to do with the Sun which supplies 99.998% of all the earth's incoming energy or the alleged nebula we are supposedly traveling into/through.

Tell me, with all your in depth research, how much has total solar irradiance changed in the past century?

The variance is actually quite small if taken over a century, but there are documented larger scale variances that occur between solar min and max. The biggest problem is the observation by NASA that we are potentially heading into a nebula. As I think you know, an increase in number of molecules per cubic meter in space will cause a relative change in thermal conductivity. So, if the entire solar system is traveling into a nebula, it stands to reason that we are going to experience some manner of environmental change based on changes in thermal conductivity between the sun and the balance of the solar system.

If Al Gore or any of his other idiots at the IPCC think that they can change the Sun, or change the space between the Sun and the Earth, well, more power to them but throwing tax dollars at governments or corporations or bankers just won't cut it. At this point in our specie's life cycle, we have neither the technology nor the intelligence to provide a solution, no matter how much money is thrown at the problem. We are quite small and insignificant when it comes to our own environment, let alone the galaxy or the universe.

As far as I am concerned, Al Gore and the IPCC are simply the tools being used to provide a platform for scare tactics, in order to create new methods to siphon off capital/value/money. They can all go pound sand.

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by bobs_uruncle

The variance is actually quite small if taken over a century, but there are documented larger scale variances that occur between solar min and max.

Yes. Very small over the past century. Enough to cause the rise in temperature which has occurred?

So, if the entire solar system is traveling into a nebula, it stands to reason that we are going to experience some manner of environmental change based on changes in thermal conductivity between the sun and the balance of the solar system.

There is no thermal conductivity between the Sun and the planets. The interplanetary medium is space, a higher vacuum than can be obtained in laboratories. There is no thermal conductivity in a vacuum (that's how a Thermos works). There is a transfer of electromagnetic radiation from the Sun to the planets. That electromagnetic radiation is converted to thermal energy "heat" when it is absorbed by the Earth's surface. Some of that "heat" is trapped by the atmosphere. BTW, we have been in the "nebula" you are talking about for thousands of years and the solar wind prevents most of the interstellar material from entering the Solar System. A very small percentage of the material found in the Solar System comes from outside of it. Something a bit less than 1% as I recall.

As far as I am concerned, Al Gore and the IPCC are simply the tools being used to provide a platform for scare tactics, in order to create new methods to siphon off capital/value/money.

Al Gore is not the IPCC and it's pretty obvious you have no idea what the IPCC actually says.

Phage
reply to post by bobs_uruncle

 

The variance is actually quite small if taken over a century, but there are documented larger scale variances that occur between solar min and max.

Yes. Very small over the past century. Enough to cause the rise in temperature which has occurred?

So, if the entire solar system is traveling into a nebula, it stands to reason that we are going to experience some manner of environmental change based on changes in thermal conductivity between the sun and the balance of the solar system.

There is no thermal conductivity between the Sun and the planets. The interplanetary medium is space, a higher vacuum than can be obtained in laboratories. There is no thermal conductivity in a vacuum (that's how a Thermos works). There is a transfer of electromagnetic radiation from the Sun to the planets. That electromagnetic radiation is converted to thermal energy "heat" when it is absorbed by the Earth's surface. Also, we have been in the "nebula" you are talking about for thousands of years.

As far as I am concerned, Al Gore and the IPCC are simply the tools being used to provide a platform for scare tactics, in order to create new methods to siphon off capital/value/money.

Al Gore is not the IPCC and it's pretty obvious you have no idea what the IPCC actually says.

edit on 10/19/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Actually, the statement from NASA was I believe in 2011 and they stated that we were entering an area of higher gaseous concentrations in a nebula, which would indicate a non-perfect vacuum. Apparently, even in intergalactic space there can still be as much as 1 to 5 molecules per cubic meter, a very good vacuum, but not a perfect vacuum. And I do know how a thermos works ;-) I also know that when a thermos has a leak, its efficiency drops.

We all know Al Gore is not the IPCC. Al Gore is simply a useful idiot that has been positioned to act as the poster boy for a political agenda called more taxation, for any reason. He's a psyop snake-oil salesman, but I did enjoy his movie, as a fantasy of sorts. The IPCC is a lot like an IRS tax judge. They gonna do what they is told by their employer, cause they pretend they gots objectivity but they don't, they has got conflict of interest goin on. We see these trends in bottom-up manipulations by the UN on agenda 21 as applied to municipalities through ICLEI. These asshats talk about sustainability while they have $1.4 million in tax revenues and $5.49 million in municipal expenses. Yeah, that's sustainable LOL and fiscally responsible too, uh huh. Let's face it, if it comes from the UN you can just figure right from the get-go, it's BS.

Ultimately, the IPCC argument does not make sense (I'd say flies in the face of reason) and when coupled with the political backing for the purposes of value added taxation it indicates a political or commercial agenda. Science should be based on observation and experimentation, NOT agendas and should not result in some tax based wealth redistribution plan to further destroy profitable nations.

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by boncho


You make a very fine point there, these companies will not stop
polluting until they are forced to, sad as it is they are short sighted.

Pollution is flat out real, if you care to see it just find
a chemical plant near your home and do a bit of investigating
on exactly how and where it all goes. The truth of that is kinda
scary honestly, i often wonder what suicidal person protects this
type of business practice.

The waste water at our local chem plant has been leaking into
the ground for years, everyone who works there knows it, the
EPA knows it, the community knows it, but nothing is done.

Sad truth is this company employes so many in our area that
them being shut down would really hurt the local economy.

sunshinehours.wordpress.com...

[exnews]Antarctica set a third All-Time Record for sea ice extent while the US federal government was “shutdown”. Data here.

The first All-Time Record was September 14th with 19.51234 million sq km. (I am using all the digits for a good reason)

The 2nd All-Time Record was September 21 with 19.51394 million sq km. – only 1600 sq km higher.

Then the shutdown happened and all the data I use was frozen at September 30th. Today the data was updated.

The 3rd All-Time Record was set on October 2nd with 19.57088 million sq km.
]

Maybe they should shut down the government if they are worried about hot air?

www.express.co.uk...
A little info on the prized IPCC report

This is not science.

True science constantly probes, doubts, tests, investigates, examines and welcomes dissent.

The IPCC did not invite one single person who did not agree with its pre-decided obsession. Nasty facts (such as the world ain’t getter warmer after all) were swept into oblivion.

Most of the attendees were not scientists at all but fanatics, what dear David likes to call swivel-eyed loons.

The chairman Rajenda Pachauri is an Indian railway engineer. Even those with a science degree were mainly not climatologists but from other and irrelevant branches of that vast subject. But career-long students of climatology are the only ones worth listening to on this ultra-vague subject – and they seem to be split down the middle.

It used to be that you spent staggering sums of public money when something had been proved beyond a scintilla of doubt.

Now these sums are being spent on fashionable theories. What really took the cherry was the bland assertion that although Earth’s surface temperatures were not rising there could well be such dangerous warmings in the deepest parts of the ocean.

Where we don’t have any monitors. So that’s all right then. Fat budgets all round and who needs real evidence?

Certainly not the IPCC.

Everyone who disagrees is labeled some derogatory name. It is the first thing you do in war or if you are a (fill in the blank) who does not want to consider your position may be wrong. Normal non scientific based rebuttal from both sides of this debate .
I post what would be considered both pro and anti global warming stuff as Kali74 will vouch. But the "flow of the many" want us to rush into a program that will cost everyone allot of money which should be based on solid science without preconceived computer models that do not reflect actual observations . Simple really if honest data is used.
The other poster who mentioned China and the polluting companies who have moved there.... You are correct my friend. That is not including all the coal fired power plants they are building which are no where close to as clean as the ones we will be forced to shut down in the U.S.
iceagenow.info...

The impact on energy prices, national economies, jobs and people’s lives has been profound and negative. For example, in response to the unfounded alarmism, Germany moved aggressively toward wind and solar energy over the past 15 years – both politically and with taxpayer and investment spending. It also shied away from more nuclear power and saw its economy contract and energy-intensive companies shed jobs and threaten to move overseas. Now Germany is burning more coal and building new coal-fired power plants, in an attempt to reverse the economic disaster its “green” and “climate protection” policies unleashed, but its actions are still sending shock waves at investors around the world

In Spain, every renewable energy job the government’s climate alarmist policies created was offset by two jobs lost in other sectors of the economy that were punished by soaring electricity prices. The demise of a Spanish economy so committed to wind and solar power finally caused reasonable people to reevaluate why these decisions had been made, and the renewable subsidies were slashed, just as they have been in Germany.

Lisa Jackson wailed that her agency would need at least 240,000 new EPA employees (each making some $100,000 per year, plus benefits) that she said would be needed just to administer new carbon dioxide regulations – and control nearly everything Americans make, drive, ship and do!

EPA currently employs some 20,000 people at an annual budget of over $8 billion. The new hires alone would cost taxpayers another $24 billion annually – plus hundreds of billions of dollars in economic pain, manufacturing shutdowns and new job losses that EPA’s CO2 regulations would inflict.