What Happened To Global Warming, it's NOT!!

[nnuut]

[SIZE=+1]Digging the grave a little deeper!![/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]Global Warming : Shut down the IPCC[/SIZE]
March 26, 2010 | Roger F. Gay

Posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:20:21 AM by RogerFGay

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has announced yet another “flaw” in their reports. It's time – once and for all – to be very clear about the obvious. There are serious conclusions to be drawn from the fact that the “flaws” in the UN reports produced bias in only one direction.
The latest announcement admits an error that supported Vegan propaganda against the meat industry. Researchers have also admitted that there is no scientifically supportable case for the IPCC's exaggerated worst-case sea-level rise (which by the way has been orders of magnitude lower than Al Gore's), dramatic ice-melts in the Himalayas and elsewhere, danger to the South American rain forest, warming of oceans, etc. etc. etc.
These (perhaps more accurately) “forced confessions” are consistent with public awareness, triggered by Climategate, of the general evaporation of the warmers' case.
Their case for dire warnings about man-made global warming has always rested on computer models that predict rapid temperature increases. These “models” were nothing more than an alternative method of presenting extremist “climate change theory.” Predictions made by the models have been consistently wrong. Lacking verification, they carry no more weight in serious scientific discussions than computer games with purely imaginary scenarios designed to entertain players.
There is no actual scientific evidence supporting the models or the warmers' theory on catastrophic man-made global warming. Warmers replaced real temperature data with fake data sets showing the trends they wanted. When the final press for public access to real data came, they destroyed the data. So, let's be absolutely clear about the obvious. They knew there was no scientifically supportable case for catastrophic man-made global warming. They lied. [more]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2480270/posts
​

 

[Viva_La_Migra]

[SIZE=+1]Digging the grave a little deeper!![/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]Global Warming : Shut down the IPCC[/SIZE]
March 26, 2010 | Roger F. Gay

Posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:20:21 AM by RogerFGay

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has announced yet another “flaw” in their reports. It's time – once and for all – to be very clear about the obvious. There are serious conclusions to be drawn from the fact that the “flaws” in the UN reports produced bias in only one direction.
The latest announcement admits an error that supported Vegan propaganda against the meat industry. Researchers have also admitted that there is no scientifically supportable case for the IPCC's exaggerated worst-case sea-level rise (which by the way has been orders of magnitude lower than Al Gore's), dramatic ice-melts in the Himalayas and elsewhere, danger to the South American rain forest, warming of oceans, etc. etc. etc.
These (perhaps more accurately) “forced confessions” are consistent with public awareness, triggered by Climategate, of the general evaporation of the warmers' case.
Their case for dire warnings about man-made global warming has always rested on computer models that predict rapid temperature increases. These “models” were nothing more than an alternative method of presenting extremist “climate change theory.” Predictions made by the models have been consistently wrong. Lacking verification, they carry no more weight in serious scientific discussions than computer games with purely imaginary scenarios designed to entertain players.
There is no actual scientific evidence supporting the models or the warmers' theory on catastrophic man-made global warming. Warmers replaced real temperature data with fake data sets showing the trends they wanted. When the final press for public access to real data came, they destroyed the data. So, let's be absolutely clear about the obvious. They knew there was no scientifically supportable case for catastrophic man-made global warming. They lied. [more]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2480270/posts
​

That should be the new mantra "Liberals lied, the economy died!"

 

[tsptalk]

Who knows what to believe anymore...

Arctic Sea Ice about to hit ‘normal’

"Barring an about face by nature or adjustments, it appears that for the first time since 2001, Arctic Sea ice will hit the “normal” line as defined by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) for this time of year."

More

 

[Frixxxx]

OMG, This is the precursor to.....wait for it.......

​

​

GLOBAL COOLING!!!!!

Start the barbeque nnuut!!!​

 

[nnuut]

Who knows what to believe anymore...

Arctic Sea Ice about to hit ‘normal’

"Barring an about face by nature or adjustments, it appears that for the first time since 2001, Arctic Sea ice will hit the “normal” line as defined by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) for this time of year."

More

How can this be, with them saying the ICE is MELTING like gangbusters!!!! The North West passage is open or opening for the first time in history!!! What does Big Al Gore say about this Cooling Effect, I know it's just a temporary BURP!!:laugh:
It IS BBQ TIME!!!!

 

[nnuut]

The DC Blizzard: More Proof of Global Warming!:laugh:

Posted February 10th, 2010 at 5:07pm in Energy and Environment with 31 comments


We knew this was coming eventually. It came from Bryan Walsh, writing in Time:

As the blizzard-bound residents of the mid-Atlantic region get ready to dig themselves out of the third major storm of the season, they may stop to wonder two things: Why haven’t we bothered to invest in a snow blower, and what happened to climate change?
…
…There is some evidence that climate change could in fact make such massive snowstorms more common, even as the world continues to warm. … That’s in part because of global warming — hotter air can hold more moisture, so when a storm gathers it can unleash massive amounts of snow.
​

The real problem is not that this explanation is wrong — in fact, the “more-moisture-there, more-snow-here” theory is actually somewhat plausible. Of course, in the next sentence Walsh points out the opposite:

Colder air, by contrast, is drier; if we were in a truly vicious cold snap, like the one that occurred over much of the East Coast during parts of January, we would be unlikely to see heavy snowfall.
​

The real problem is with both claims taken together: last year’s relative lack of snow was cited as proof of global warming, and this year’s over-abundance of snow is also cited as proof of global warming. A theory that is considered confirmed by whatever happens, no matter what happens, is not a scientific theory at all. It’s like Petr Beckmann’s example of an “inherently irrefutable” claim, which is that there is a second moon orbiting the earth which has zero mass and becomes transparent when illuminated. That theory is entirely consistent with such an object never being observed — which means it can never be disproved no matter how false it is.
So it is with global warming. If there is lower-than-average snow it’s due to global warming (“too warm for snow to form”) and if there is higher-than-average snow it’s due to global warming (“more moisture there, more snow here”), and if snowfall is average, the two cancel out. If northern Europe as a less severe winter, it’s due to global warming making winters less cold; if northern Europe as a more severe winter, it’s due to global warming interfering with the Gulf Stream.
No matter what happens, it’s “proof” of global warming. It’s the theory that can never be disproved no matter how false it is. Which is to say, it’s not really a scientific theory at all.
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/10/the-dc-blizzard-more-proof-of-global-warming/

 

[jimijr]

Air Does Not Hold Water

Bryan Walsh appears to have at least one flaw in his knowledge of our atmosphere: "...hotter air can hold more moisture..."

Air does not "hold" water. Asking how much water air can hold is like asking how much oxygen it can hold, or how much nitrogen. See for example,

http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadClouds.html

Remember, if your assumptions are false then your conclusion is invalid.

 

[Buster]

Re: Air Does Not Hold Water

Bryan Walsh appears to have at least one flaw in his knowledge of our atmosphere: "...hotter air can hold more moisture..."

Air does not "hold" water. Asking how much water air can hold is like asking how much oxygen it can hold, or how much nitrogen. See for example,

http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadClouds.html

Remember, if your assumptions are false then your conclusion is invalid.

Hot air, cold air..it's all relative..
Lets say 100ºF air is being compared to 50ºF air..at a constant of 14.7 PSI at a 50% Relative Humidity (RH)....The 100ºF air will be able to contain many more moister than the 50ºF air...

FYI, there is a simple little tool called The psychrometric chart that can be used to prove it..

Let me attempt to educate you...

50ºF air @ 50% RH @ 14.7 PSI (Standard atmospheric barometric pressure), will be able to contain ≈ .004 pounds of moister (also known as WATER or H2O ) in a Pound of this Air.

100ºF air @ 50% RH @ 14.7 PSI (Standard atmospheric barometric pressure), will be able to contain ≈ .021 pounds of moister (also known as WATER or H2O ) in a Pound of this Air.


I'll provide this simple psychrometric chart for you to try and see it for yourself...good luck with that

Remember, if your assumptions are false then your conclusion is invalid

 

[nnuut]

Up in the Air

by Elizabeth Kolbert April 12, 2010

Joe Bastardi, who goes by the title “expert senior forecaster” at AccuWeather, has a modest proposal. Virtually every major scientific body in the world has concluded that the planet is warming, and that greenhouse-gas emissions are the main cause. Bastardi, who holds a bachelor’s degree in meteorology, disagrees. His theory, which mixes volcanism, sunspots, and a sea-temperature trend known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, is that the earth is actually cooling. Why don’t we just wait twenty or thirty years, he proposes, and see who’s right? This is “the greatest lab experiment ever,” he said recently on Bill O’Reilly’s Fox News show.
Bastardi’s position is ridiculous (which is no doubt why he’s often asked to air it on Fox News). Yet there it was on the front page of the Times last week. Among weathermen, it turns out, views like Bastardi’s are typical. A survey released by researchers at George Mason University found that more than a quarter of television weathercasters agree with the statement “Global warming is a scam,” and nearly two-thirds believe that, if warming is occurring, it is caused “mostly by natural changes.” (The survey also found that more than eighty per cent of weathercasters don’t trust “mainstream news media sources,” though they are presumably included in this category.)
Why, with global warming, is it always one step forward, two, maybe three steps back? A year ago, it looked as if the so-called climate debate might finally be over, and the business of actually addressing the problem about to begin. In April, the Obama Administration designated CO2 a dangerous pollutant, thus taking the first critical step toward regulating carbon emissions. The following month, the Administration announced new fuel-efficiency standards for cars. (These rules were finalized last week.) In June, the House of Representatives passed a bill, named for its co-sponsors, Edward Markey and Henry Waxman, that called for reducing emissions seventeen per cent by 2020. Speaking in September at the United Nations, the President said that a “new era” had dawned. “We understand the gravity of the climate threat,” he declared. “We are determined to act.”



Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/04/12/100412taco_talk_kolbert#ixzz0kEJuXZ3o
​

 

[Buster]

Why is it...When a group of Dimwits and gloom mongers come up with a catastrophe waiting to happen scenario, based on voodoo science AND THEN PROVEN WRONG TIME AND TIME AGAIN...and THESE SAME PEOPLE OR IDIOTS WHO ARE IN CHARGE OF ECONMIES AND BUDGETS, NEVER WANT TO SAY : OOPS! we made a mistake, so never mind, as you were?...Instead they continue to cover their ignorant misinformed asses and keep pushing the issue.


I refer you to the OZONE hole thing in the 90's...Totally proven wrong by competent science..but yet the Refrigeration industry was totally turned upside down because of it...At immense costs to us, the consumer.

 

[CountryBoy]

Why is it...When a group of Dimwits and gloom mongers come up with a catastrophe waiting to happen scenario, based on voodoo science AND THEN PROVEN WRONG TIME AND TIME AGAIN...and THESE SAME PEOPLE OR IDIOTS WHO ARE IN CHARGE OF ECONMIES AND BUDGETS, NEVER WANT TO SAY : OOPS! we made a mistake, so never mind, as you were?...Instead they continue to cover their ignorant misinformed asses and keep pushing the issue.


I refer you to the OZONE hole thing in the 90's...Totally proven wrong by competent science..but yet the Refrigeration industry was totally turned upside down because of it...At immense costs to us, the consumer.

They do the same thing with the HC Bill. They don't have the nads to say, yep we may have screwed up and our taxes are going to go up. It's time these folks grow up and take responsiblility for the socialist slide they have caused for our country.

 

[CountryBoy]

A sneak attack on your electric bill

Bottom line: The Department of Environmental Conservation is basically imposing hurdles that Indian Point almost certainly can't clear -- which suggests what the real agenda is here. The fact that it's demand in such an unfeasible system when better, more attainable alternatives are available is just confirmation.

That is: The decision to deny Indian Point its water-quality certificate is a bid to close the plant down -- possibly with an eye on then shuttering other nuclear plants with similar cooling systems across the state or even nationwide.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinio...m_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Heritage+Hotsheet

Coming soon to a utility near you. Just more lies by the current regime.

 

[nnuut]

What's the Next 'Global Warming'? :worried:

Herewith I propose a contest to invent the next panic.

• By BRET STEPHENS

So global warming is dead, nailed into its coffin one devastating disclosure, defection and re-evaluation at a time. Which means that pretty soon we're going to need another apocalyptic scare to take its place.
As recently as October, the Guardian reported that scientists at Cambridge had "concluded that the Arctic is now melting at such a rate that it will be largely ice free within ten years." This was supposedly due to global warming. It brought with it the usual lamentations for the grandchildren.
But in March came another report in the Guardian, this time based on the research of Japanese scientists, that "much of the record breaking loss of ice in the Arctic ocean in recent years is [due] to the region's swirling winds and is not a direct result of global warming." It also turns out that the extent of Arctic sea ice in March was around the recorded average, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
The difference between the two stories has little to do with science: There were plenty of reasons back in October to suspect that the Arctic ice panic—based on data that only goes back to 1979—was as implausible as the now debunked claim about disappearing Himalayan glaciers. But thanks to Climategate and the Copenhagen fiasco, the media are now picking up the kinds of stories they previously thought it easier and wiser to ignore.
View Full Image

Associated Press This image provided by NASA shows QuikScat interannual observations of sea ice over the Arctic.

This is happening internationally. In France, a book titled "L'imposture climatique" is a runaway bestseller: Its author, Claude Allègre, is one of the country's most acclaimed scientists and a former minister of education in a Socialist government. In Britain, environmentalist patron saint James Lovelock now tells the BBC he suspects climate scientists have "[fudged] the data" and that if the planet is going to be saved, "it will save itself, as it always has done." In Germany, the leftish Der Spiegel devotes 15 pages to a deliciously detailed account of "scientists who want to be politicians," the "curious inconsistencies" in the temperature record, the "sloppy work" of the U.N.'s climate-change panel and sundry other sins of modern climatology.
As for the United States, Gallup reports that global warming now ranks sixth on the list of Americans' top 10 environmental concerns. My wager is that within a few years "climate change" will exercise global nerves about as much as overpopulation, toxic tampons, nuclear winters, ozone holes, killer bees, low sperm counts, genetically modified foods and mad cows do today.
Something is going to have to take its place. [more]
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...73845958914.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular

 

[Buster]

I suggest in light of the current bit of Tectonic activity...We'll call the next apocalyptic armageddon...
"GLOBAL QUAKING"

 

[nnuut]

Here they come again folks, hold on to your wallets!!:nuts: Bend over and Cap and Tax
April 8, 2010, 3:23 p.m. EDT
Democrats pivot to climate change as election clock ticks

Environmentalists optimistic about passing bill, but politics complicated


By Robert Schroeder, MarketWatch

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Hot on the heels of the health-care reform bill, lawmakers will soon begin considering major climate-change legislation that the White House wants to get passed this year. But with a little more than seven months to go until Election Day, some are asking: can the Democrats do it?
"The Democratic members, especially newly elected members, are going to be pretty reluctant to pursue an aggressive agenda," says pollster Scott Rasmussen. Even more especially those Democrats, he says, in districts carried by Republican presidential candidate John McCain in 2008.
Another landslide devastates residents in Niteroi, near Rio de Janeiro, adding to the death toll in Brazil after torrential rains. Video courtesy of Reuters.

With unemployment still soaring at nearly 10% and with voters still digesting the new health-care law, global warming doesn't rank as Americans' highest concern, Rasmussen says. But congressional Democrats are expected to lose seats in November's mid-term elections, and the White House and environmentalists are pushing for action while the numbers are on their side.
"It is our hope that the Senate will act this year, and we're going to do everything in our power to support that and make it happen," White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy director Carol Browner told U.S. News & World Report this week.
A spokeswoman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says Reid hopes the Senate will "be able to take up" bipartisan, comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation this year.
Observers expect a bill authored by Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, to be rolled out the week of April 19. It's expected to call for reducing carbon emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 -- though that target would only apply at first to electric utilities and maybe transportation fuels. Industries would be phased in later.

The big question is if lawmakers think global warming is a serious enough problem to pass an energy bill now.
​

"It's going to be very different from the economy-wide 'cap-and-trade' approach taken by Waxman-Markey," says Environmental Defense Fund spokesman Tony Kreindler, referring to the bill that passed the House last June.
And that difference may make the difference for passage this year, environmentalists say.
The phased-in approach "should help with some of the Midwestern Democrats," says Daniel Weiss, director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress. If industries' emissions are off the table for now, manufacturing states' lawmakers could breathe easier. "There's a clear path to getting a global warming bill enacted in 2010," says Weiss, who notes that Congress has approved major legislation before elections, including amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1990.
Are voters worried enough? [more]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/under-election-gun-congress-pivots-to-energy-2010-04-08

 

[nnuut]

More moisture more clouds, more clouds increase the temperature more than higher levels of CO2 cause warming. Who said that? I said that!:laugh: It's a known scientific fact!

Altogether Water; in its three forms as vapor, liquid droplets, and particles of ice; is the overwhelmingly dominant substance in Earth's climate.
http://www.applet-magic.com/cloudiness.htm

 

[nnuut]

Agreed, but many do not think that CO2 is a major contributor to Global warming.
http://nov55.com/gbwg.html

 

[Frixxxx]

2009 is the 2nd warmest year on record​

Man, if we had more volcanic activity.... What can we do to make those volcanoes erupt?....they cool the surface temperature just fine....

:laugh:Seems to me if the Southern hemisphere is generating more heat, we need to smack down some more third world countries!!!!!:laugh:

Seriously though!
Nice report, but there is a LOT of "natural" reasoning in that report.....not human inferred action.

Also, data gathering: "The program calculates trends in temperature anomalies — not absolute temperatures — but changes relative to the average temperature for the same month during the period of 1951-1980." So I have to call the math suspect until I see their proper applied science.

Also, temperature gathering is only "trusted" since 1880 when accurate readings could be taken from "precision" devices.....

Lastly, I believe that scientist estimate the earth to be 4-5 billion years old...and you want me to just arbitrarily believe in a little over 100 years we have any clue on how the earth is affected by every single variable out there?

 

[nnuut]

Let's not forget El Nino!!

 

[nnuut]

2009 is the 2nd warmest year on record​

"2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880."

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/

Agreed, but many do not think that CO2 is a major contributor to Global warming.
http://nov55.com/gbwg.html

Oh, I did not agree with this, you must have posted just before I responded to your previous post? So be it, show me the holes!!