Deniers continue to insist there's no consensus on global warming.

[scandal 951]

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

i feel warm.

[scandal 951]

i feel warm.

It's Hot as Hades!! And gettin' hotter!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I'm going to turn on the A/C in my SUV.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Glacier in Patagonia, Argentina 1928. Glacier in Patagonia, Argentina 2004. 76 years of climate change.

Pssst

Glaciers have covered NYC. Where did they go?

Science and history.... thou hast been PWNED!!

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseacti...ideoID=50356732

[GaryC 7]

To bad, deal with it.

For someone who wishes to employ humor as a retort, you seem oddly humor impaired.

I guess it was more dismissive sarcasm than humor then.

Well, that changes everything, doesn't it?

I am reading the current global temp results for last year. It seems that last years lowering of global temps have wiped out all the gains made in the last 100 years. All this discussion really is moot.

Gary do you understand the difference between weather and climate?

Because if you do, perhaps you can explain it to me.

According to my understanding of these two concepts your sentence "It seems that last years lowering of global temps have wiped out all the gains made in the last 100 years." is preposterous. The temperature could be -20 degrees for 365 days of the year for the past year, and not "wipe out" the "gains" . We're talking about climate. Not weather.

When you also consider that the temps have been going down or flat lining since 1998 and last year it really jumped down it starts looking less like weather and more like a reversal in the climate change then it is something that seems significant. At what point does weather change become climate change? How many years of declining temps does it take before the alarmists admit that they were wrong?

[nowhereman 1]

Gary & Bat have created a new type of fallacy... if you can't convince the other you're right in thread #1, create thread #2, thread #3, etc. about the same topic. No wait that fallacy already exists... its called argumentum ad nauseam.

[GaryC 7]

Glacier in Patagonia, Argentina 1928. Glacier in Patagonia, Argentina 2004. 76 years of climate change.

Pssst

Glaciers have covered NYC. Where did they go?

Science and history.... thou hast been PWNED!!

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseacti...ideoID=50356732

Tanzania official now declares ice caps on Mt Kilimanjaro 'increasing' – May 2008

Excerpt: A Cabinet minister has allayed fears that ice caps on Mt Kilimanjaro that is a big tourist attraction in the region could disappear permanently. The minister for Natural Resources and Tourism, Ms Shamsa Mwangunga, says contrary to reports that the ice caps were decreasing owing to effects of global warming, indications were that the snow cover on Africa's highest mountain were now increasing. "Among the signs of more snow is the decrease in temperatures in areas surrounding the mountain, heavy rainfall this year and increased precipitation and spring water flow on the slopes of the mountain," she pointed out.

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2008/05/...w-declares.html

Researchers from the U.S. and Austria say global warming isn't the cause of Kilimanjaro ice loss – June 13, 2008

Excerpt: Al Gore has made the disappearing snows of Mount Kilimanjaro a cornerstone of his crusade against global warming. In his film "An Inconvenient Truth" for example, he says: "Within the decade, there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro." But now researchers from the U.S. and Austria say global warming isn't the cause, and the fluctuations are nothing new. American Science magazine reports most of the current snow retreat occurred before 1953 — nearly two decades before any conclusive evidence of atmospheric warming was available. One of the scientists writes: "It is certainly possible that the icecap has come and gone many times over hundreds of thousands of years." The article says the disappearance of Kilimanjaro's ice is not driven by warming air temperature, but by solar radiation — and that much of the ice is not melting, but vanishing by sublimation where ice at very low temperatures converts straight to water vapor.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MANN_KILIMANJARO.pdf

[tmma 467]

Here is the accepted definitions of weather and climate.

What Weather Means

Weather is basically the way the atmosphere is behaving, mainly with respect to its effects upon life and human activities. The difference between weather and climate is that weather consists of the short-term (minutes to months) changes in the atmosphere. Most people think of weather in terms of temperature, humidity, precipitation, cloudiness, brightness, visibility, wind, and atmospheric pressure, as in high and low pressure.

What Climate Means

In short, climate is the description of the long-term pattern of weather in a particular area.

Some scientists define climate as the average weather for a particular region and time period, usually taken over 30-years. It's really an average pattern of weather for a particular region.

When scientists talk about climate, they're looking at averages of precipitation, temperature, humidity, sunshine, wind velocity, phenomena such as fog, frost, and hail storms, and other measures of the weather that occur over a long period in a particular place.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/c...te_weather.html

[GaryC 7]

Here is the accepted definitions of weather and climate.

What Weather Means

Weather is basically the way the atmosphere is behaving, mainly with respect to its effects upon life and human activities. The difference between weather and climate is that weather consists of the short-term (minutes to months) changes in the atmosphere. Most people think of weather in terms of temperature, humidity, precipitation, cloudiness, brightness, visibility, wind, and atmospheric pressure, as in high and low pressure.

What Climate Means

In short, climate is the description of the long-term pattern of weather in a particular area.

Some scientists define climate as the average weather for a particular region and time period, usually taken over 30-years. It's really an average pattern of weather for a particular region.

When scientists talk about climate, they're looking at averages of precipitation, temperature, humidity, sunshine, wind velocity, phenomena such as fog, frost, and hail storms, and other measures of the weather that occur over a long period in a particular place.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/c...te_weather.html

Well then, the trend in the weather patterns don't look good for the GW alarmists. At the very least it does not fit the theoretical model of man made GW. Since the model states that rising CO2 levels cause a rise in temps and that hasn't been happening for 10 years now it does not look good for the theory. It does look good for the other theory that says CO2 is a lagging indicator and gives credibility to the idea that these changes are natural.

[HAL 9000 96]

If science has all the answers, why are we still making observations and collecting data?

Or people that still can't distinguish between climate and weather.

No Gary... Global Warming is described scientifically. Which is why politicos misrepresent the facts as do those that wish to not realize fact for fact.

You mean like this guy?

Sure why not.

We can sit here and argue about peer review process or data analysis all night long but it is all trumped by one fact, global warming has ended. So all other points are moot.

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.

Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.

Update 2/27: The graph for HadCRUT (above), as well as the linked graphs for RSS and UAH are generated month-to-month; the temperature declines span a full 12 months of data. The linked GISS graph was graphed for the months of January only, due to a limitation in the plotting program. Anthony Watts, who kindly provided the graphics, otherwise has no connection with the column. The views and comments are those of the author only.

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monit...rticle10866.htm

Wooot! More weather = climate. Yesssss!!

yeah, that really adds to intelligent debate Gary.

You know, that's exactly the reason I prefer battling wits with Marc at this hour of the night.

His sh!t makes me laugh. Yours just makes me groan.

No more than the constant denying of the facts by HAL. No matter what is said he is right and I am wrong. His bias is laughable.

I noticed you were very quiet about discussing scientific points in that article you posted in the other thread.

Of course, when you yourself are the very definition of fact, we can all laugh together.

I am reading the current global temp results for last year. It seems that last years lowering of global temps have wiped out all the gains made in the last 100 years. All this discussion really is moot.

Because climate = weather. Of course

[HAL 9000 96]

To bad, deal with it.

For someone who wishes to employ humor as a retort, you seem oddly humor impaired.

I guess it was more dismissive sarcasm than humor then.

Well, that changes everything, doesn't it?

I am reading the current global temp results for last year. It seems that last years lowering of global temps have wiped out all the gains made in the last 100 years. All this discussion really is moot.

You have been told already- climate covers much longer time scales than weather- being a single year to short decades (weather).

I guess others can join my scientific bias too. Oh well.

Gary do you understand the difference between weather and climate?

Because if you do, perhaps you can explain it to me.

According to my understanding of these two concepts your sentence "It seems that last years lowering of global temps have wiped out all the gains made in the last 100 years." is preposterous. The temperature could be -20 degrees for 365 days of the year for the past year, and not "wipe out" the "gains" . We're talking about climate. Not weather.

When you also consider that the temps have been going down or flat lining since 1998 and last year it really jumped down it starts looking less like weather and more like a reversal in the climate change then it is something that seems significant. At what point does weather change become climate change? How many years of declining temps does it take before the alarmists admit that they were wrong?

Here is the accepted definitions of weather and climate.

What Weather Means

Weather is basically the way the atmosphere is behaving, mainly with respect to its effects upon life and human activities. The difference between weather and climate is that weather consists of the short-term (minutes to months) changes in the atmosphere. Most people think of weather in terms of temperature, humidity, precipitation, cloudiness, brightness, visibility, wind, and atmospheric pressure, as in high and low pressure.

What Climate Means

In short, climate is the description of the long-term pattern of weather in a particular area.

Some scientists define climate as the average weather for a particular region and time period, usually taken over 30-years. It's really an average pattern of weather for a particular region.

When scientists talk about climate, they're looking at averages of precipitation, temperature, humidity, sunshine, wind velocity, phenomena such as fog, frost, and hail storms, and other measures of the weather that occur over a long period in a particular place.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/c...te_weather.html

GRACIAS!!!!!!!!!!!

While the deniers continually state the lag is on an 800-year cycle, so its completely incongruous to your claim, Gary.

[NickD 203]

Whether you guys know this or not, the EPA requires an engine to maximize the CO2 output, CO2 is considered a safe inert gas. And if the engine can't do that, the catalytic converter was added in 1972 with raw air pumped into it to complete the burning process.

In one view, the EPA doesn't give a damn about fuel efficiency, just what is coming out of the pipe, even to the point where the EPA wanted to inject raw gas into the catalytic converter to decrease the warm up time, a cold catalytic converter doesn't do ####### for emissions. Those short trips many of us take really foul up the air, like a two block drive to your gym for a work out or returning a rented DVD.

Only way to reduce NOx emissions is to reduce combustion chamber temperature that is a complete contradiction to engine efficiency, also effectively reduces the engine size by 30% requiring a much larger engine to get the same HP, so you can get on a freeway ramp, you have to make the engine 30% larger that also consumes more gas. You don't need that HP when just cruising at 55, but that extra engine size is burning extra gas during that time. Hybrids can promise to give that extra HP for accellerating, but then you have to haul an extra motor with you plus a ton of batteries that are only used during that accelleration process.

And if paying someone on your CC to replace a spark plug can result in payments for life, these hybrids can really kill you even if there is just one loose wire.

The major emission of exhausts is water vapor, about 90% of your exhaust, water vapor contributes far more to global warming than anything else, but not a very good argument when living on a planet covered 75% with water. That only leaves CO2 to b!tch about, hooray for Al Gore, he did do some homework. Even though his arguments are extremely weak.

The automobile is just about the most inefficient device we own, while 15% of that energy gets us there, that is only driving alone on the freeway, with 90% of us driving in the city, 4-5% efficiency is more like it. But our idiots running our government like to pick on freeway speed limits instead.

One can only guess that our EPA is ran by the major oil companies, sure seems that way, just based on their regulations. Seems ironic that as powerful our automotive industry is, or was, they were killed by the high petrol products they need just as much as we do to sell their product. Nothing more worthless than a vehicle with an empty fuel tank.

With the EPA now faced with CO2 emissions, interesting, that is going to change everything, can't wait to see what happens. Can talk about global warming, but long before then, with what we are paying for oil plus the wars we have to pay for, our country will go broke long before global warming becomes a problem, if it is even a problem.

Automotive engineers really don't listen to either marketing nor consumer demands, have to listen to the EPA in case you didn't know that.

[tmma 467]

.....

The major emission of exhausts is water vapor, about 90% of your exhaust, water vapor contributes far more to global warming than anything else, but not a very good argument when living on a planet covered 75% with water. ........

.....

Water vapor is a major greenhouse gas.

So why is CO2 focused on? Well, in simple terms it's cyclical. More CO2 in the atmosphere, then the atmosphere warms (CO2 is a greenhouse gas) and a warm atmosphere holds more water vapor (a major greenhouse gas) which in turn retains more heat and more heat means more water vapor content and this charges more warming more warming means more water vapor content and so on and so on....... A double strike. And so it goes round and round.

-Since the only way we can control water vapor levels is by controling atmospheric temp-then CO2 MUST be factored in. Reduce the warming impact of CO2-a colder atmosphere means less water content ( a cold atmosphere is dryer than a warmer one)-therefore less water vapor content-therefore less of a greenhouse effect from water vapor.....Or that's the general idea anyway.

Edited July 2, 2009 by tmma

[Ban Hammer 13,399]

I think HAL and Steven have probably assumed the fetal position by now. You have truly pwned them both. From this onslaught, they may never recover.

My sarcasm meter just pegged. No matter, I still think I am right and I firmly believe that history will show that. Man made GW al gore is a hoax.

fixxored