Global Warming Cont...

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

"Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close. Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.
The data is being reported by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center"


Yet another reputable source throwing a wrench in GW propoganda. I'm about ready to call this whole thing junk science. I've read over 1,000 articles and reports in everything from the NYT to Science. I just don't see anything solid. Definitely nothing solid enough to cripple the American economy and restrict the freedoms of America's lower and middle class who can't afford carbon offsets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duckbillplatty

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

"Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close. Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.
The data is being reported by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center"


Yet another reputable source throwing a wrench in GW propoganda. I'm about ready to call this whole thing junk science. I've read over 1,000 articles and reports in everything from the NYT to Science. I just don't see anything solid. Definitely nothing solid enough to cripple the American economy and restrict the freedoms of America's lower and middle class who can't afford carbon offsets.

---

Wow, we get one cold winter and we suddenly forget about the dozens of warm winters. Nobody ever said that climate worked in a linear fashion. As far as I can tell, global warming is as real as real can get. So, yes, we must control our carbon emissions. But don't worry, in the long run it will be good for the lower and middle classes because all that waste CO2 can be turned into fuel for our cars and trucks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Wow, we get one cold winter and we suddenly forget about the dozens of warm winters. Nobody ever said that climate worked in a linear fashion. As far as I can tell, global warming is as real as real can get. So, yes, we must control our carbon emissions. But don't worry, in the long run it will be good for the lower and middle classes because all that waste CO2 can be turned into fuel for our cars and trucks.

---

that is the dumbest thing i have read this week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

that is the dumbest thing i have read this week.

---

Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Wow, we get one cold winter and we suddenly forget about the dozens of warm winters.

---

OK, can you tell me 3 "warm winters" out of the dozens you mention?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

As far as I can tell, global warming is as real as real can get.

---

Obviously you can't "tell" very far :D :D :D :D


TD :cowboy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TechsasDawg

OK, can you tell me 3 "warm winters" out of the dozens you mention?




Obviously you can't "tell" very far :D :D :D :D


TD :cowboy:

---

What's the use in "telling" a bunch of boneheads?:D:D:D:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

What's the use in "telling" a bunch of boneheads?:D:D:D:D

---

When you don't "know" anything, there's absolutely NO use in 'telling' anything!! Since you've been there and done that, I really don't think it was necessary for me to inform you of that, huh?


TD :cowboy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Nobody ever said that climate worked in a linear fashion.

---

You're right, most everybody saying AGW is fake makes the cyclical argument. Glad to see you're aboard!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TechsasDawg

When you don't "know" anything, there's absolutely NO use in 'telling' anything!! Since you've been there and done that, I really don't think it was necessary for me to inform you of that, huh?


TD :cowboy:

---

So what is it that you "know"?

I posted that, arkansasbob, knowing how the fool would react.

Yes, no (significant) above average temps for the year in the us.

Not below, just not significantly above.

No below average for the year...well, probably since youve been born. For the year, that is.

Dont count for the global numbers to be only .2 degree above average...

Suckers

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog

Friday, January 09, 2009
2008 Coldest Year Since 2000 and Clearly Not a Top Ten Warmest Year
By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow

2008 ranked 15th coldest of the thirty years of records for the University of Alabama MSU based lower tropospheric temperatures (right in the middle of the pack). It was the coldest year since 2000. It continues the downtrend of the last 7 years. This compares with the Hadley Center data which (together with the equally alarmist WMO) claims 2008 will rank 10th warmest since 1850. (159 years!). How can an “average year” in one data base appear be a “top 6%” warmest year in another?

Well the global data bases of NOAA GHCN, NASA GISS and Hadley CRUT3v are all contaminated by urbanization, major station dropout, missing data, bad siting, instruments with known warm biases being introduced without adjustment and black box and man made adjustments designed to maximize warming (Steve McIntyre found more urban areas had their temperatures adjusted up then down). Also ocean temperatures are an issue with a change in the methods of measurement and incomplete coverage. Hadley uses their own merchant ship data and that covers some heavily travelled routes but has no coverage of the vast southern oceans (the oceans cover 70% of the world’s surface).

for the chicken-littles saying it's a single year anomoy vs. a trend

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/TEMPSvsCO2.jpg

[QUOTE=DogtorEvil;716512][Well the global data bases of NOAA GHCN, NASA GISS and Hadley CRUT3v are all contaminated by urbanization, major station dropout, missing data, bad siting, instruments with known warm biases being introduced without adjustment and black box and man made adjustments designed to maximize warming (Steve McIntyre found more urban areas had their temperatures adjusted up then down). QUOTE]

One of the many examples:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/1...s-the-red-dot/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Why?

---

i don't know the reason -- maybe because it's the first time this week i've read a saltydawg post?

oh, you're asking why it's dumb. i'll answer that question with another question: how will the co2 be used for fuel?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DogtorEvil

for the chicken-littles saying it's a single year anomoy vs. a trend

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/TEMPSvsCO2.jpg

---

More worthless satellite temperature data at 60,000 ft.. Hint: it's the surface and ocean temperatures that count.