North Pole will be warmer than Western Texas today

[Expat1 971]

now you've lost me.

It was easy.

Used to live in North Pole, Ak. Right now, it's 30 below there. Hardly cause for alarm. Just sayin'.

Weather report: Bahrain weather is awesome. Happy New Year!

[Rob L 3,811]

You are right. any model predicting weather at any particular spot on the planet becomes more and more imprecise as we move forward in time to a point of being basically useless very quickly.

This has nothing do with climate change.

We know CO2 traps energy in the atmosphere, we also know that humans are currently creating about 38 billion tons every year. Natural CO2 emissions vary year to year and our planet has natural balancing mechanisms - such as CO2 causing plants to grow faster which reduces CO2 and increases O2.

Currently the ecosystem of the planet is not able to naturally balance the CO2 that is created naturally and by man. This is not in dispute - we know exactly how exactly how much CO2 is in the atmosphere and that it is increasing and that the rate is increasing. We also know that if we take the amount in the atmosphere and subtract what humans are adding the increase would be zero. The debate is the effect his will have on the planet.

Nobody really knows the endpoint if this continues - will the earth find a new balance point by releasing the excess energy in the form of continually increasing weather extremes? Or possibly a shutdown of the jet stream and ocean currents which has been predicted which would result in regional extremes and may lead to another ice age? We really don't know - temporarily the earth can balance the excess energy by melting ice but that does not last forever.

Lets experiment and find out...how many do-overs do we get if the ice melts?

[Rob L 3,811]

Infographic: Sea level rise

We know seas are rising and we know why. The urgent questions are by how much and how quickly. Available to download, this infographic covers the science behind sea level rise, who's affected, how much melting ice is contributing, and what NASA is doing to help.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

The New York Times' Global Warming Hysteria Ignores 17 Years Of Flat Global Temperatures

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/08/21/the-new-york-times-global-warming-hysteria-ignores-17-years-of-flat-global-temperatures/

The New York Times feverishly reported on August 10 that the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is about to issue another scary climate report. Dismissing the recent 17 years or so of flat global temperatures, the IPCC will assert that: “It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010.”

The draft report also says “There is high confidence that this has warmed the ocean, melted snow and ice, raised global mean sea level and changed some climate extremes in the second half of the 20th century.” And whereas the IPCC’s previous report modestly claimed a 90% chance that human activities were the cause, they’re now ratcheting up their confidence level to 95%.

Obviously then, they must have some very strong evidence to back this amplified bluster. Right? Well, then again, maybe not so much after all.

What Evidence Exists of Unnatural Recent Global Warming?

Cyclical, abrupt and dramatic global and regional temperature fluctuations have occurred over millions of years. Many natural factors are known to contribute to these changes, although even the most sophisticated climate models and theories they are based on cannot predict the timing, scale (either up or down), or future impacts- much less the marginal contributions of various human influences.

While global warming has been trumpeted as an epic climate change crisis with human-produced CO2, a trace atmospheric “greenhouse gas” branded as a primary culprit and endangering “pollutant,” remember that throughout earlier periods of Earth’s history CO2 levels have been between four and eighteen times higher than now, with temperature changes preceding, not following atmospheric CO2 changes.

Recommended by Forbes

Has there been “recent” warming? Yes, the global climate has definitely warmed since the Little Ice Age (about 1400-1700 AD), and it will likely continue to warm for another 200-300 years, in fits and starts, towards a max temp roughly matching that of the Medieval Warm Period. That time followed a colder period before the founding of Rome between about 750 BC to 200 BC. By 150 BC the climate had warmed enough for the first grapes and olives to be cultivated in northern Italy. As recently as 1,000 years ago, Icelandic Vikings were raising cattle, sheep and goats in grasslands on Greenland’s southwestern coast.

Then, around 1200, temperatures began to drop, and Norse settlements were abandoned by about 1350. Atlantic pack ice began to grow around 1250, and shortened growing seasons and unreliable weather patterns, including torrential rains in Northern Europe, led to the “Great Famine” of 1315-1317.

Temperatures dropped dramatically again in the middle of the 16th century, and although there were notable year year-to-year fluctuations, the coldest regime since the last Ice Age (that so-called “Little Ice Age”) dominated the next hundred and fifty years or more. Food shortages killed millions in Europe between 1690 and 1700, followed by more famines in 1725 and 1816. The end of this time witnessed brutal winter temperatures suffered by Washington’s troops at Valley Forge in 1777, and Napoleon’s bitterly cold retreat from Russia in 1812.

Although temperatures have been generally mild over the past 500 years, we should remember that significant fluctuations are normal. The past century alone witnessed two distinct periods of warming. The first occurred between 1900 and 1945, and the second, following a slight cool-down began quite abruptly in 1975. That second period rose at very modest rate, if at all, until 1998, and then stopped and began falling again after reaching a high of 1.16ºF above the average global mean temperature. There hasn’t been any warming for at least a decade and a half, and possibly, considerably longer.

It’s also worth remembering that about half of all estimated warming since 1900 occurred prior to the mid-1940s despite continuously rising CO2 levels. Also consider that, even today, about 97% of all current atmospheric CO2 derives from natural sources.

What Evidence Exists of Human CO2 Influences on Climate?

All IPCC climate models incorporate theory which predicts that “anthropogenic” (human-caused) global warming will be evident in an “amplification” of a surface warming trend that is revealed as an atmospheric “hot spot” in the tropical troposphere. Instead, both satellite data and independent balloon data show a near-zero trend from 1979 to 1997, followed by a well-known 1998 temp “spike” which is universally attributed to a Super-El- Niño. This absence of an observed hot spot suggests that the land-surface temperature warming trend (1979-1997) is greatly overestimated, and should be close to zero in the Tropics.

So where does the evidence needed to support the IPCC’s 95 percent certainty claim come from? The true answer is that there simply isn’t any. None at all. There never was…only totally unproven theoretical climate models.

[Expat1 971]

No better way to guarantee funding than to employ some good old fashioned scare tactics, even if you have to tweak the facts a little

Lets experiment and find out...how many do-overs do we get if the ice melts?

Seriously? Pass your hat elsewhere dude.

[Expat1 971]

As far as I'm concerned the global warming community needs to practice reading thermometers and writing the numbers down before they make any more slick brochures.

One possible training exercise is for us to pass a bill to fund and pass out thousands of rectal thermometers that they can practice using with each other.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.

This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.

Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.

Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy.

One of the first examples of these “adjustments” was exposed in 2007 by the statistician Steve McIntyre, when he discovered a paper published in 1987 by James Hansen, the scientist (later turned fanatical climate activist) who for many years ran Giss. Hansen’s original graph showed temperatures in the Arctic as having been much higher around 1940 than at any time since. But as Homewood reveals in his blog post, “Temperature adjustments transform Arctic history”, Giss has turned this upside down. Arctic temperatures from that time have been lowered so much that that they are now dwarfed by those of the past 20 years.

Homewood’s interest in the Arctic is partly because the “vanishing” of its polar ice (and the polar bears) has become such a poster-child for those trying to persuade us that we are threatened by runaway warming. But he chose that particular stretch of the Arctic because it is where ice is affected by warmer water brought in by cyclical shifts in a major Atlantic current – this last peaked at just the time 75 years ago when Arctic ice retreated even further than it has done recently. The ice-melt is not caused by rising global temperatures at all.

Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.

[Dakine10 5,452]

The New York Times' Global Warming Hysteria Ignores 17 Years Of Flat Global Temperatures

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/08/21/the-new-york-times-global-warming-hysteria-ignores-17-years-of-flat-global-temperatures/

Your article is 2 years out of date. The temperature increase since 2013 has been +0.21°C. Looking at the link below showing annual temperature change going back to 1880, it's easy to see why skeptics would choose 1997 as the start year when cherry picking data.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/11/1880-2015

Even though this years GMT of +0.87°C was the highest recorded, next years is predicted to top it. Stay tuned.

[eieio 1,594]

Don't forget…. there is still time to buy your carbon credits for 2015.

I am starting to believe that The Religion of Man Made Global Warming is a more dangerous religion than Islam.

I am starting to question my belief that Islam is the most dangerous religion. I know both are loaded with nut jobs…the question is which one has the ability and will to cause more harm?

Edited January 5, 2016 by eieio

[Rob L 3,811]

No better way to guarantee funding than to employ some good old fashioned scare tactics, even if you have to tweak the facts a little

Seriously? Pass your hat elsewhere dude.

I am not sure what to believe, the climate deniers or my lying eyes

[Dakine10 5,452]

Don't forget…. there is still time to buy your carbon credits for 2015.

I am starting to believe that The Religion of Man Made Global Warming is a more dangerous religion than Islam.

I am starting to question my belief that Islam is the most dangerous religion. I know both are loaded with nut jobs…the question is which one has the ability and will to cause more harm?

You haven't been able to make a post in this thread without insulting someone or venting. You have added absolutely ziltch to the topic. There couldn't possibly be a better way for you to admit you got nothing. I thank you.

[eieio 1,594]

Where you able to buy anymore carbon credits?

There is an old saying......" A fool and his money soon part"

[Dakine10 5,452]

Where you able to buy anymore carbon credits?

There is an old saying......" A fool and his money soon part"

IIRC, you were recently complaining about being short on cash.

[Expat1 971]

Your article is 2 years out of date. The temperature increase since 2013 has been +0.21

°C. Looking at the link below showing annual temperature change going back to 1880, it's easy to see why skeptics would choose 1997 as the start year when cherry picking data.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/11/1880-2015

Even though this years GMT of +0.87

°C was the highest recorded, next years is predicted to top it. Stay tuned.

Highest actual or highest tweaked? You stay tuned. That article is dated feb, 2015. Be sure to pick up that thermometer today. Edited January 5, 2016 by Expat1

[Expat1 971]

I am not sure what to believe, the climate deniers or my lying eyes

You sure picked the right screen name to sell your message lol

[Teddy B 17,252]

You haven't been able to make a post in this thread forum without insulting someone or venting. You have added absolutely ziltch to the topic. There couldn't possibly be a better way for you to admit you got nothing. I thank you.

Slight adjustment to reflect reality.