Global Warming Update

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: KeithE

Global Warming Update

Postby KeithE » Mon May 27, 2013 9:27 pm

After some sparring between William and myself on a hijacked ObamaCare Costs post, David posted this snippet of DATA from 1997 -2012. Image

I pointed out with the plot below, that he had truncated most of the existing DATA from 1750 until today where the upward trend is very pronounced from 1970 - 2000 (at least) and substantial from 1880-1940 as well (overall the increase is about 1.3C over the industrial period).
Image

Note the great agreement among instrumental data analysts (Jim Hansen’s NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC, Phil Jones’s HAD/CRU, and a reevaluation of all the data from Richard Muller’s BEST study, this latter study funded by Koch Brothers with their hand picked leader Muller who opinions changed markedly as he and his team studied the DATA). To boot the satellite DATA from 1979 on by the denialist-leaning UAH supports the trends in lower troposphere air temps from these groups as shown here:
Image

Note that one could truncate the satellite data to 1997-2010 as well here but honesty demands otherwise. Also the years 1997 and into 1998 are known as extremely high El Nino years and could with justification be deleted as “wild points”, but let's keep it for honesty's sake.

I don’t see David doing this truncation maliciously; instead he jumps at denialist “truncated” propaganda because it fits his hard core fixation that GW cannot be true and ignores all other data.

I do not know where David got his “flat-line” data (he did not reference it). Truth is all four instrumental data sets show a modest increase since 2000 (see two plots up). But it is true that the rise in air temperatures have been slowed from 2001 to today. If the CO2 is continuing upward during 2001-2013, why is the surface air temp rise slowed? Legitimate question. After all the CO2 level has continued to rise reaching 400ppm on May 13-15, 2013) far more than historical values (see the 2 plots below).

Mauna Loa measurements:
Image

800,000 year record via ice cores:
Image

As I answered briefly in the hijacked ObamaCare post, it is because the extra heat is going into the oceans. And I note here, the greatest rise in ocean heat content is precisely during the same period (2001-today) as the air surface temps have slowed (or stayed "flat-lined" as David claims). Look at the rapid rise in ocean heat content (joules) since 2001. It has been especially pronounced in the deep oceans (>700m depth).

Image
More information about this “reanalysis” data (anchored by bathythermographs and surface buoys) that dates from 1958 is given here.

Conclusion of the scientific paper is in the above article:
Perhaps the most important result of this paper is the confirmation that while many people wrongly believe global warming has stalled over the past 10–15 years, in reality that period is “the most sustained warming trend” in the past half century. Global warming has not paused, it has accelerated.


That conclusion is independently verified by a continual rise in global sea levels with a mild acceleration (slope in second half of 20th century os greater than first half).
Image

The ocean heat content and sea level rise are actually the better indicators of global warming than the temperature of the thin layer of the air atmosphere (but all three agree that earth is warming).

I’ll tackle
0) editing this post
1) the continual agreement of 95-98% of climatologists believing in Anthropogenic Global Warming
2) the continual worsening of severe climate events (but not tornados) as a results of Global Warming
3) new info on premium costs of ObamaCare (on the hijacked post)
in the near future - my wife just got home and wants to play a game.

But I wanted to bring a 2013 update to global warming to BL - aren’t yall glad!
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6305
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Update

Postby KeithE » Sat Jun 01, 2013 10:22 pm

Consistently for 7 years now since 2007, 95%-100% of current climatologists or climate researchers believe in AGW.
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; and 84% believe global climate change poses a moderate to very great danger.[109] [110]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries....To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago in 2009 received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:
(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[113]

In an October 2011 paper published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 489 scientists working in academia, government, and industry. The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society and listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science, a biographical reference work on leading American scientists. Of those surveyed, 97% agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring. Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.[114][115]


Well it seems we can add 2012 as a year where polls of the scientific community shows they believe in AGW.
Scientific Consensus Stronger than Scientists Thought?

It appears that 100% of the 171 experts thought GW was caused by human activity (90% say humans are the primary cause of GW and 10% said it was a secondary cause, 0% that humans had no impact and 0% the earth has not warmed in the last 250 years)


And now in 2013:
A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers, finding 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming and reporting:
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.[118]
Additionally, the authors of the studies were invited to categorise their own research papers, of which 1,381 discussed the cause of recent global warming, and:
Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.


That is 7 straight years of polling about what real climate researchers believe about AGW since 2007. And it is at least 95% believe it (one poll said 100% said humans were the primary or secondary cause).

If that is not sufficient to convince David (and nothing will), BL readers can try statements from scientific organizations of national or international standing. There are 34 organizations committing to AGW, 0 dissenting, and 5 non-commital.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6305
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Update

Postby William Thornton » Sun Jun 02, 2013 5:51 am

...then again, it may be that individuals and organizations understand that permission to join the scientific priesthood is not currently available unless they take the HC-GW pledge.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 10527
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Global Warming Update

Postby KeithE » Sun Jun 02, 2013 9:03 am

William Thornton wrote:...then again, it may be that individuals and organizations understand that permission to join the scientific priesthood is not currently available unless they take the HC-GW pledge.

The AGW denialists publish in Jounrnal of Energy and Environment and I’m not sure if it was included in the 2013 survey of literature or not. That would be interesting to note. Reputable journals demand scientific peer-review and much denialist-slanted studies get filtered out deservedly. So I understand you point but I’m sure it does not invalidate the conclusion that the huge majority of climatologists are AGW due to their studies.

You can read a defense of the 2013 survey of literature here. This survey actually went back in time to 1991 to assess how viewpoints in the papers have changed.
Image
They both read the abstracts and contacted the authors and the results have converged to 97% of published climate scientists believe in the tenets of AGW. Since 1995 the results have not changed markedly (some modest changes as the science was getting settled in 1991-1995). A fact borne out by my list of independent surveys posted above.

The huge private sector (mostly oil interests) denialist movement did not begin in earnest until 1998. And as usual, the tepid scientists counter movement was slow to respond - they are above the fray. But the numbers did not take a dogleg up or down after 1998. Facts are facts to these scientists.

Opinions are opinions among the conservative public and methinks they are based on 1) wishful thinking (I sure hope my grandkids will live in good habitat), 2) ideological fixations (e.g. hatred of govt mucking - especially UN), 3) bandwagon effect (all us good godly people have to stick together against the “elitists") and 4) fear mongering about the cost of regulation (ignoring the costs of no action which we are already experiencing, let alone the human tragedy).

Image
Note that this is normalized to dollars.

For more details read this article.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6305
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Update

Postby Timothy Bonney » Sun Jun 02, 2013 10:23 am

If anything opposition to scientific data about Global Climate Change seems to me to bring about an almost religious fervor.

I believe that Global Climate Change is real. But I just can't get all upset about it one way or another arguing as a non-scientist with a bunch of non-scientist (well Keith excluded since I think you work in the sciences) about what we think of science. I might as well argue with a bunch of non-physicians about what I think of the value of appendix surgeries. I have expertise in neither so I'm going to accept the scientific consensus until I see something else.
Tim Bonney
Senior Pastor
Grace United Methodist Church
Sioux City, Iowa
Blog - http://circuitwriter.org
User avatar
Timothy Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3691
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:17 am
Location: Sioux City, Iowa

Re: Global Warming Update

Postby Haruo » Sun Jun 02, 2013 5:39 pm

I suppose the question is, is the appendix part of the "bowels" that the Wesleys were so fond of... ;-) If so, then removing it might have an unforeseen soteriological impact.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 10091
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 8:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Global Warming Update

Postby Timothy Bonney » Sun Jun 02, 2013 7:02 pm

Haruo wrote:I suppose the question is, is the appendix part of the "bowels" that the Wesleys were so fond of... ;-) If so, then removing it might have an unforeseen soteriological impact.


From the "bowels of compassion" text in the KJV?
Tim Bonney
Senior Pastor
Grace United Methodist Church
Sioux City, Iowa
Blog - http://circuitwriter.org
User avatar
Timothy Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3691
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:17 am
Location: Sioux City, Iowa

Re: Global Warming Update

Postby Haruo » Sun Jun 02, 2013 8:42 pm

Timothy Bonney wrote:
Haruo wrote:I suppose the question is, is the appendix part of the "bowels" that the Wesleys were so fond of... ;-) If so, then removing it might have an unforeseen soteriological impact.


From the "bowels of compassion" text in the KJV?

As I recall the KJV only has two or three books (I & II Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh, I think) in the appendix, so we're probably safe, if not quite secure.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 10091
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 8:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Global Warming Update

Postby David Flick » Thu Feb 06, 2014 2:52 am

William Thornton wrote:...then again, it may be that individuals and organizations understand that permission to join the scientific priesthood is not currently available unless they take the HC-GW pledge.
    KeithE wrote:The AGW denialists publish in Jounrnal of Energy and Environment and I’m not sure if it was included in the 2013 survey of literature or not. That would be interesting to note. Reputable journals demand scientific peer-review and much denialist-slanted studies get filtered out deservedly. So I understand you point but I’m sure it does not invalidate the conclusion that the huge majority of climatologists are AGW due to their studies.

    You can read a defense of the 2013 survey of literature here. This survey actually went back in time to 1991 to assess how viewpoints in the papers have changed.
    Image
    They both read the abstracts and contacted the authors and the results have converged to 97% of published climate scientists believe in the tenets of AGW. Since 1995 the results have not changed markedly (some modest changes as the science was getting settled in 1991-1995). A fact borne out by my list of independent surveys posted above.

      The continuous drumbeat from the warmists about the bogus 97% consensus among all climate scientists that global warming is real never seems to end. Keith declares it to be a "fact." Actually, it's nothing more than a myth. I suppose it could be said that if one spins a myth enough times and succeeds in getting it published in a gazillion publications and on twice as many blogs, coupled with slick graphs, it will be believed by a host of unsuspecting gullible persons. Earlier this week, a nice article (with an embedded link to an extensive 50-page study) puts the myth to rest:
      February 4, 2014
      Debunking the 97% 'consensus' on global warming
      Thomas Lifson

      The main pillar of the warmist argument is the contention that a "consensus" exists among scientists that global warming is caused by man and threatens catastrophe. But a Canada-based group calling itself Friends of Science has just completed a review <--(embedded link) of the four main studies used to document the alleged consensus and found that only 1 - 3% of respondents "explicitly stated agreement with the IPCC declarations on global warming," and that there was "no agreement with a catastrophic view." (Continue reading...)
    The huge private sector (mostly oil interests) denialist movement did not begin in earnest until 1998. And as usual, the tepid scientists counter movement was slow to respond - they are above the fray. But the numbers did not take a dogleg up or down after 1998. Facts are facts to these scientists.

    Opinions are opinions among the conservative public and methinks they are based on 1) wishful thinking (I sure hope my grandkids will live in good habitat), 2) ideological fixations (e.g. hatred of govt mucking - especially UN), 3) bandwagon effect (all us good godly people have to stick together against the “elitists") and 4) fear mongering about the cost of regulation (ignoring the costs of no action which we are already experiencing, let alone the human tragedy).

      The paragraph above is just plain funny. Laughably so... :lol:
    [... clip...]
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7986
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Update

Postby Mrs Haruo » Thu Feb 06, 2014 2:03 pm

8) The low temperatures over the last week here in Seattle make me think think that if there is global warming, it ain't here, bucky boy. I keep pans of water in the yard for our hobo cats to drink from and birds to swim in, and they have frozen solid and not thawed for several days. If it took Hell freezing over for the Seahawks to finally win the Super Bowl, the barbecue is closed. Hell is frozed. :D
Don't despair if your job and your rewards are few, remember that the mighty oak was once a nut like you!
User avatar
Mrs Haruo
 
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 2:54 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Global Warming Update

Postby David Flick » Thu Feb 06, 2014 3:26 pm

Mrs Haruo wrote:8) The low temperatures over the last week here in Seattle make me think think that if there is global warming, it ain't here, bucky boy. I keep pans of water in the yard for our hobo cats to drink from and birds to swim in, and they have frozen solid and not thawed for several days. If it took Hell freezing over for the Seahawks to finally win the Super Bowl, the barbecue is closed. Hell is frozed. :D

Mrs Haruo, being an Okie from OKC, I'm well familiar with hell gettin' froze over. One of the most prominent opponents of global warming alarmism is an Okie. Oklahoma's Senior Senator, James Inhofe, one and the same as the person who wrote, The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future is one of the most hated skeptics on the planet. The alarmists hate his guts. Speaking of the Oklahoma Senator, one poor alarmist couched it this way:
The guy is pure sleaze. He’s mostly portrayed as being the dumbest person in the Senate; and, while that may be true, people don’t get the main issue. He’s a whore. He doesn’t care if what he says is false and ridiculous. It’s what he’s being paid to say. So, it doesn’t matter that the entire planet is making fun of him. Ain’t this boogie a mess? The crux of the biscuit, is the apostrophe. (Source...)


I have a strong hunch that the gods of global climate are putting the poor fool in his place. It's payback time... Hell is froze over in Oklahoma today... :lol: :lol:
.
.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7986
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Update

Postby KeithE » Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:06 pm

David Flick wrote:
William Thornton wrote:...then again, it may be that individuals and organizations understand that permission to join the scientific priesthood is not currently available unless they take the HC-GW pledge.
    KeithE wrote:The AGW denialists publish in Jounrnal of Energy and Environment and I’m not sure if it was included in the 2013 survey of literature or not. That would be interesting to note. Reputable journals demand scientific peer-review and much denialist-slanted studies get filtered out deservedly. So I understand you point but I’m sure it does not invalidate the conclusion that the huge majority of climatologists are AGW due to their studies.

    You can read a defense of the 2013 survey of literature here. This survey actually went back in time to 1991 to assess how viewpoints in the papers have changed.
    Image
    They both read the abstracts and contacted the authors and the results have converged to 97% of published climate scientists believe in the tenets of AGW. Since 1995 the results have not changed markedly (some modest changes as the science was getting settled in 1991-1995). A fact borne out by my list of independent surveys posted above.

      The continuous drumbeat from the warmists about the bogus 97% consensus among all climate scientists that global warming is real never seems to end. Keith declares it to be a "fact." Actually, it's nothing more than a myth. I suppose it could be said that if one spins a myth enough times and succeeds in getting it published in a gazillion publications and on twice as many blogs, coupled with slick graphs, it will be believed by a host of unsuspecting gullible persons. Earlier this week, a nice article (with an embedded link to an extensive 50-page study) puts the myth to rest:
      February 4, 2014
      Debunking the 97% 'consensus' on global warming
      Thomas Lifson

      The main pillar of the warmist argument is the contention that a "consensus" exists among scientists that global warming is caused by man and threatens catastrophe. But a Canada-based group calling itself Friends of Science has just completed a review <--(embedded link) of the four main studies used to document the alleged consensus and found that only 1 - 3% of respondents "explicitly stated agreement with the IPCC declarations on global warming," and that there was "no agreement with a catastrophic view." (Continue reading...)
    The huge private sector (mostly oil interests) denialist movement did not begin in earnest until 1998. And as usual, the tepid scientists counter movement was slow to respond - they are above the fray. But the numbers did not take a dogleg up or down after 1998. Facts are facts to these scientists.

    Opinions are opinions among the conservative public and methinks they are based on 1) wishful thinking (I sure hope my grandkids will live in good habitat), 2) ideological fixations (e.g. hatred of govt mucking - especially UN), 3) bandwagon effect (all us good godly people have to stick together against the “elitists") and 4) fear mongering about the cost of regulation (ignoring the costs of no action which we are already experiencing, let alone the human tragedy).

      The paragraph above is just plain funny. Laughably so... :lol:
    [... clip...]


David I will read the Friends of Science (FoS) review in due time. Sometimes poll questions are misleading and William there can be a bandwagon effect in science as well as RW politics/religion. And polls can be stacked. But in this case 7 years in a row by separate organizations (as summarized here) say 97% [95%-100%] of climatologists say GW/CC is upon us and it is man-caused.

Read about the FoS petro-origins in Calgary in 2002 (just as Tar Sands in Alberta were being touted). Friends of Science Website in their “About Us” gives it’s opinion about GW/CC

Our Opinion:
It is our opinion that the Sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change.


That is what is truly laughable ( :lol: ).

Scientists rank the causes of GW/CC by an equivalent “radiative forcing” in W m-2 (Watts per square meters). There is a history of these bar charts at The evolution of radiative forcing bar-charts since James Hansen’s first one in 1981. Hansen 81 said CO2 forcing was 2.8 W m-2 while solar forcing was 1.6 W m-2 (which was the second highest forcing)
Image
Ever since then the influence of the solar radiative forcing(W m-2) has declined as the scientific studies have matured and today (in IPCC2013) the solar variability radiative forcing is 0.05 W m-2 which is 33.6 less than CO2 forcing (1.68 W m-2) with 7 other forcings being larger than the solar forcing.
Image
Reduce your screen magnification to see the whole charts above (or better yet read the whole “Evolution of Radiative forcing bar-charts” link above for discussion and charts.

Any organization whose “opinion” is that far off of the "science” is truly laughable and that would include the so-called “Friends of Science” group and its “human face” these days: Dr. Tim Ball a "credential-fudging denialist crank”.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6305
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Update

Postby David Flick » Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:34 am

.
.
.
.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7986
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Update

Postby David Flick » Sat Feb 08, 2014 12:16 am

User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7986
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK


Re: Global Warming Update

Postby KeithE » Tue Feb 11, 2014 10:42 am



One article, many truths from all around the globe. Please read!
Hot Alaska, Cold Georgia: How The Shifted Polar Vortex Turned Winter Upside-Down

You can plot the trend in frigid nights for your nearest city here. For example in my neck of the woods.
Image

You know it can show anytime temps are below ~32F and there is moisture in the air.

This NOAA article explains the breakup of the cold, low pressure region (regularly mostly over the North Pole) into 2 vortices that occasionally move south.

Image

as it has done on this Feb 11 2014:
Image

So take into account David’s Warning
Image
he has so graciously applied.

Yep I’m still home - 1 inch snow, some icy roads, and a 2 hour delay for Redstone Arsenal. Better get moving on.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6305
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Update

Postby David Flick » Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:00 am

.
.
.
        Image
        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Image
        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Image
        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Image
        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7986
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Update

Postby KeithE » Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:45 am

David Flick wrote:.
.
.
        Image
        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Image
        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Image
        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Image
        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.

Impressive.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6305
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Update

Postby Haruo » Thu Feb 13, 2014 5:28 pm

Wow!
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 10091
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 8:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Global Warming Update

Postby David Flick » Thu Feb 13, 2014 8:13 pm

.
.
.
:lol: The joke is on me with this one. I learned something that I hadn't previously known about posting images. Turns out that the images were stored in my email program. I received three cartoons from my friend Joseph Bast. I wanted to share them with BL.Com friends, so I created links directly to the email. As long as my email program is open, the images will show on the discussion forum. I discovered this by attempting to link directly to the images with my email program not open. Here's what I found. My solution was to store the images on my personal web and post links thereto. As long as my email program is open, the images will appear in the posts above. When I close the program, the images will go blank. This post will be permanent... Live and learn, I suppose. :lol:


        Image
        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Image
        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Image
        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Image
        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7986
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Update

Postby KeithE » Fri Feb 14, 2014 8:18 am

David Flick wrote:.
.
.
:lol: The joke is on me with this one. I learned something that I hadn't previously known about posting images. Turns out that the images were stored in my email program. I received three cartoons from my friend Joseph Bast. I wanted to share them with BL.Com friends, so I created links directly to the email. As long as my email program is open, the images will show on the discussion forum. I discovered this by attempting to link directly to the images with my email program not open. Here's what I found. My solution was to store the images on my personal web and post links thereto. As long as my email program is open, the images will appear in the posts above. When I close the program, the images will go blank. This post will be permanent... Live and learn, I suppose. :lol:


        Image
        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Image
        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Image
        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Image
        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.

Impressive.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6305
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Update

Postby David Flick » Fri Feb 14, 2014 12:22 pm

.
.


          ... [Snip] ...

KeithE wrote:Impressive.
    Thanks, I knew you'd enjoy them... :D

.
.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7986
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Update

Postby David Flick » Sun Feb 16, 2014 12:11 am

.
.
.
        One more...

        Image
        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Image
        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7986
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Update

Postby David Flick » Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:02 am

.
.

Climate Alarmists Sink to Comedic Low Explaining Historic Cold
February 16, 2014
James M. Taylor, J.D.

Confronted with the embarrassment of historic cold gripping the nation just as the Obama administration launches a new offensive on the mythical global warming crisis, global warming activists and their media allies just invented their most knee-slapping assertion yet; that global warming causes winter cold outbreaks.

Global warming activists, after giving us about 48 hours of silence after the cold temperatures hit while they scrambled to come up with an explanation, now say they have always predicted global warming would cause more frequent and severe winter cold spells.

From Silence to Propaganda Offensive
For about 24 hours after the cold temperatures descended, the alarmists were enforcing radio silence on global warming. Then, when the jokes were too widespread to ignore, they spent the next 24 hours telling us occasional cold outbreaks are still “consistent” with a rapidly warming planet. Another 24 hours later, they adopted the “we predicted this all along” meme.

Continue reading...

.
.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7986
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Update

Postby KeithE » Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:17 pm

David Flick wrote:.
.

Climate Alarmists Sink to Comedic Low Explaining Historic Cold
February 16, 2014
James M. Taylor, J.D.

Confronted with the embarrassment of historic cold gripping the nation just as the Obama administration launches a new offensive on the mythical global warming crisis, global warming activists and their media allies just invented their most knee-slapping assertion yet; that global warming causes winter cold outbreaks.

Global warming activists, after giving us about 48 hours of silence after the cold temperatures hit while they scrambled to come up with an explanation, now say they have always predicted global warming would cause more frequent and severe winter cold spells.

From Silence to Propaganda Offensive
For about 24 hours after the cold temperatures descended, the alarmists were enforcing radio silence on global warming. Then, when the jokes were too widespread to ignore, they spent the next 24 hours telling us occasional cold outbreaks are still “consistent” with a rapidly warming planet. Another 24 hours later, they adopted the “we predicted this all along” meme.

Continue reading...

.
.


Global warming has fortunately not got to the spot where temperatures are never below freezing over much of the mid-to-upper latitudes of the world. It has only increased about 2F globally and temps below 32F are still likely several times a year in mid-america. As such whenever we have freezing temperatures along with precipitation, we will have a good possibility of snow or freezing rain; heavier the precip, the heaver the snow. No one (even the most alarming alarmist) is saying we will not have snow in the mid-latitude USA anytime soon (that is another imaginary foil coming from the denialists). Their cartoons and the article David offers above really show their ignorance.

The land area affected by extreme precipitation events has slowly risen since 1960 in the 48 states from about 9% to 15% (~ curve fit)
Image
causing traffic issues in some areas not used to snow (like Atlanta).

What is also clear and found almost everywhere in the US is that the number of “frigid nights” have fallen over the last 40 years as previously posted here.

Likewise there has been a decrease in cold days and increases in both hot days and hot nights over 40 years. Read about that here and the data is given below:

Image
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6305
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Next

Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest