RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Abrams reports: "Remember that time when a giant pattern of Arctic air descended over the U.S. and Canada, freezing everything in its path? Remember when it came back? Yeah, that's all happening again."

The first polar vortex. (image: NASA/Facebook)
The first polar vortex. (image: NASA/Facebook)


The Polar Vortex Is About to Hit for the Third Time

By Lindsay Abrams, Salon

22 February 14

 

Next week is going to be brutal

emember that time when a giant pattern of Arctic air descended over the U.S. and Canada, freezing everything in its path? Remember when it came back? Yeah, that-s all happening again.

Here-s Wunderground-s Jeff Masters, who completely buried the lede with something about a "major February thaw" across the Midwest U.S. before delving into this forecast of horrors:

Fortunately (?) for the Midwest, this week-s thaw will be short-lived, preventing the kind of major flooding that would result if all of the snowpack were to melt in a week. This morning-s runs of the GFS and European models were better able to handle the evolving upper-air pattern over the Pacific Ocean, and it appears that their earlier runs seriously underestimated the strength of a ridge of high pressure forecast to build over the Western U.S. 6 - 10 days from now. This ridge will be accompanied by a return of the cold "Polar Vortex" over the Midwest and Northeast U.S., bringing bitter cold temperatures and strong winds. Temperatures 20°F below normal will likely invade the Upper Midwest on Sunday, and gradually spread southeastwards during the week. The peak cold is predicted to occur late next week, with temperatures 20 - 35° below normal covering much of the eastern 2/3 of the country.

To reiterate, that-s temperatures 20 to 35 degrees below normal. Over much of the easter two-thirds of the country. We have six to ten days to prepare.

Here-s what it-ll look like:

Sure, we were cold the last two times around. But did we truly appreciate the might and force of the original polar vortex? This mind-blowing NASA video demonstrates just what we were dealing with:

 

 

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+21 # Anarchist 23 2014-02-22 17:24
No global warming driving climate change here...lalalala lala...just a bunch of Not Sees....move along, nothing to see here......
 
 
+10 # Walter J Smith 2014-02-22 20:45
This all must have been scripted by the radical reductionist philosopher, Daniel Dennett: if I don't see it, it doesn't exist. And I ain't looking so shut up.

He might be the denial artists god.
 
 
-115 # Malcolm 2014-02-22 23:38
Hot weather? Global warming.
Drought? Global warming.
Floods? Ditto.
Freezing cold? Ditto.
Blizzards? Ditto.
Car won't start? Global warming.
Flatulent? Global warming.
Warming hiatus? Global warming.
Global warming. Step right up.
Global warming. Everyone's a winner.
Global warming: solves all our problems.
Global warming. Explains EVERY ISSUE.
Vote Global Warming in 2016.
Global warming. No need to think.
GLOBAL WARMING. What, me worry?
Global warming. Coming to a town near you.
Long live global warming.
Viva global warming.
God save the global warming.
Global warming: We're all going to die .
Global warming. Thank you.
Global warming. Please come again.
Global warming. REAL SOON.
 
 
+86 # dsfingers 2014-02-23 00:12
Umm, I'm not sure but your "wit" is lost on me, if this is what you intended. If so, it's the intellectual equivalent of putting your hands over your ears yelling "LALALA I can't hear you" and imagining your terribly clever.
 
 
-32 # BKnowswhitt 2014-02-23 12:07
Malcolm all the negatives but no real debate. As well 'Left Leaning' News feeds the beast as well almost like 'we're on the Blue team and the enemy is on the Red Team .. we believe this you believe that .. like a bunch of school girls .. where's the 'beef' of factual reporting on this topic from them? It does not exist! And they make big dough feeding the drivel on this subject ..
 
 
+22 # Billy Bob 2014-02-23 20:20
In order for there to be a meaningful "debate", you must FIRST deal with a few things:

-97% of all professional scientists who've actually studied the climate agree that global warming is real and man-made.

-Over 200 major scientific organizations (including NOAA, and NASA) have openly published official statements that global warming is real and man-made.

-All 10 of the top 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 1998.

-The definition of the word, "GLOBAL" (hint: The U.S. only represents 1% of the Earth's surface).

-The necessity for (NON-RIGHT-WING ) LINKS (ESPECIALLY when your argument disagrees with a 97% consensus).

-The fact that snarky smartassed remarks and "jokes" that only YOU think are funny, is NOT a substitute for a valid "argument".

---------------

Until you can manage to do that, you cannot be taken seriously, and you deserve to be ignored, like most people have done.
 
 
-4 # Malcolm 2014-02-24 14:05
Yes, school girls. And boys. But your reference to Red Team and Blue team-that's the exact argument I've usd in the past about this very subject, but I took the idea from Kurt Vonnegut's PLAYER PIANO. The Blue Team and Red team in that book weren't school kids; they were the crem de la crem of society, the engineers that kept all the machinations functioning properly.

The "normal" people-like some people at this very site, were called the Reeks and Wrecks, and spent their days doing mindless labor, or they joined the military.

Player Piano has been called a sort of Blueprint for Neocon Ameika.
 
 
-3 # Malcolm 2014-02-24 14:10
Yes, school girls. And boys. But your reference to Red Team and Blue team-that's the exact argument I've used in the past about this very subject, but I took the idea from Kurt Vonnegut's PLAYER PIANO. The Blue Team and Red team in that book weren't school kids; they were crème de la crème of society, the engineers that kept all the machinations functioning properly.

The "normal" people-like some people at this very site, were called the Reeks and Wrecks, and spent their days doing mindless labor-make work, if you will-or they joined the military.

Player Piano has been called a sort of Blueprint for Neocon Amerika.
 
 
+10 # Farafalla 2014-02-23 17:58
You should go to your nearest community college and sign up for Physical Geography 1 or Environmental Science 1 and actually learn the difference between weather and climate. Throw in anthropogenic and you might actually expand your vocabulary.
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2014-02-23 23:46
Not really convincing anybody, are you?

...OH!

...Except BKnowsShit.
 
 
0 # Lowflyin Lolana 2014-02-25 21:43
...Trollin'...
 
 
-1 # Malcolm 2014-02-26 11:53
Dang! I was hoping to get the T.S. Elliot Award for the best poetry written by an amateur in 2014. Y'all are NOT helping
my chances.

I'm happy that amost 2000 of you faithful readers gave me thumbs up, but who are the 2100 who gave me all the negatives? Don't y'all like good poetry?
 
 
+28 # Carol R 2014-02-23 04:30
Scientific American headline: "Three-Quarters of Climate Change is Man-Made"

"Natural climate variability is extremely unlikely to have contributed more than about one-quarter of the temperature rise observed in the past 60 years, reports a pair of Swiss climate modelers in a paper published online December 4. Most of the observed warming—at least 74 percent—is almost certainly due to human activity, they write in Nature Geoscience.

Since 1950, the average global surface air temperature has increased by more than 0.5 degree Celsius. To separate human and natural causes of warming, the researchers analyzed changes in the balance of heat energy entering and leaving Earth—a new "attribution" method for understanding the physical causes of climate change.

Their findings, which are strikingly similar to results produced by other attribution methods, provide an alternative line of evidence that greenhouse gases, and in particular carbon dioxide, are by far the main culprit of recent global warming. The massive increase of atmospheric CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times would, in fact, have caused substantially more surface warming were it not for the cooling effects of atmospheric aerosols such as black carbon, they report."
 
 
+27 # ericlipps 2014-02-23 07:58
Malcolm, your problem is that many of the one-liners you lay out actually are true, though you intend them to be understood as ridiculous.

Yes, even the one about "freezing cold." In that case, what has happened is that warming elsewhere has altered wind currents over the Arctic, allowing frigid polar air to dip down over the eastern half of the U.S. Meanwhile--as you'd know if you actually paid attention to any weather news that didn't sound useful in debunking global warming--out west, they're facing temperatures far above normal and desperately battling drought and wildfires.

Eventually, though, if tis keeps up, there simply won't be that huge pool of frigid air in the far north; the Arctic will have warmed enough for its waters to be ice-free. Even now, your friends in the oil companies are racing to stake claims in the region so they can start drilling when that happens, and tensions are building over territorial claims there. But of course, those folks are all fools and Communists too, I suppose.
 
 
-11 # Malcolm 2014-02-23 23:13
I know they're true. It's the WARMIST/alarmis ts way of saying "heads we win, tails you lose.

No matter WHAT the weather, it's automatically blamed on global warming

I suppose you're not aware that in 1999, James Hansen said,

"Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath…..
in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country"?
 
 
-10 # Malcolm 2014-02-23 23:14
Continued
Are you aware that, back in 1999, GISS US temperature data showed an 80+ year decline in US temperatures, with 1934, 1921 and 1931 being the three hottest years?

That wAs BEFORE the Warmists, including NASA, decided they'd be able to scare more people if they told the poor sheep that 1998 was the HOTTEST year on record in the USA. Sounds scary, eh?

This kind of disingenuity is what got so many warmists' tits in a wringer a la "Climategate" fortunately for them, their buds were allowed to "investigate" their nefarious behavior, and-surprise, surprise-they were exonerated! Sound the trumpets!

I'll bet you, and the other AGW worshippers who post here, see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil when it comes to all these "Hide the Decline" shenanigans. Am I right?
 
 
+3 # Billy Bob 2014-02-23 23:31
1. Are you aware that the word "GLOBAL" does not only refer to the U.S., but also refers to the other 99% of the Earth?

Look up "GLOBAL".

2. Check out this link:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/fake-scandal-Climategate.html

(TITLE: "THE FAKE SCANDAL OF 'CLIMATEGATE' ")

3. Attacking NASA isn't a good way to win an argument about SCIENCE.
 
 
-6 # Malcolm 2014-02-24 11:41
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@[snipped] , mhughes@
[snipped]
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@[snipped],t.osborn@[snipped]
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers, Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit
 
 
-6 # Malcolm 2014-02-24 11:44
From: Tom Wigley [...]
To: Phil Jones [...]
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer [...]
Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that theland also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips—higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

IN OTHER WORDS, folks, if the data don't fit, just CHANGE THE FRIGGIN DATA.
 
 
0 # Cailleach 2014-02-27 11:04
Finally, a reference to what's happening in the rest of the country. The last time we had snow in northern NM was a week before Thanksgiving. Sometimes it's been 50 to 60 degrees where I live--at 7,000 feet. That's in January and February. We may be looking at dry streams, rivers, and wells this summer. YIKES!

There's a little snow on the higher Sangre de Cristos I can see from my window, but not much. New Mexico will be fighting with Colorado in a new set of water wars.
 
 
+46 # mighead 2014-02-23 05:28
The excuse for continuing to use fossil fuels is that they are cheap...especia lly for Industry...

the problem is that they are very expensive for everybody else...

My understanding is the bill for the damage done by Sandy alone is $50B...

that isn't CHEAP ENERGY!!!
 
 
-8 # BKnowswhitt 2014-02-23 14:36
Same exact scenario of Sandy happened in 1896 with surge over staten island. Problem is man does not study history except afterwards. Same happened with Fukishima ... the old guard put up stone posts after same sunami there couple hundred years earlier .. but no one paid attention and built below those lines ... fossil fuels didn't create the phenom in 1896 ... so what's your scientific answer to what caused it a century ago? ..
 
 
-8 # Malcolm 2014-02-23 23:45
BK, whoever named this storm "Superstorm Sandy" either never read their history, or deliberately exaggerated Sandy's power.

A good read-one the Warmists would gain from, (assuming they might WANT to learn something) can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_New_England_hurricane

This "Long Island Express", dropping from category 5 to category 3 upon striking NYC, was apparently the most powerful storm to hit NYC since the 17th century. Certainly CO2 cannot have caused any of THESE early hurricanes, so why do the Warmists try to blame CO2 for "Superstorm Sandy".

Btw, Sandy was only a category 1 storm when it hit NYC; in fact, some meteorologists say Sandy wasn't even a hurricane by the time it hit NYC. The record DAMAGE was due to so much more real estate development in flood prone, low lying, waterfront properties.

Considering the fact NYC had already been seriously damaged-not to mention high numbers of deaths-by these earlier storms, and considering the enormous wealth of the city, they were crazy to build in harm's way without at least building seawalls higher than the highest historic storm surges!
 
 
-7 # Malcolm 2014-02-24 11:46
HIDE THE DECLINE!

From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.

This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.c osust.2009.06.0 01. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
***

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.***
 
 
-8 # Malcolm 2014-02-24 11:54
Oh, and here's a fun one:

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@XXX.osborn@XXXX

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXX
School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX
University of East Anglia
Norwich
.

Of course, all these fellows' PEERS say there's no issue. Just the peers' normal SNAFU. Doesn't mean a thing.

But can ANYONE HERE read these emails, and still believe these guys aren't faking the data?
 
 
0 # Cailleach 2014-02-27 11:09
If there is a lack of warming in Colorado,please send NM your water. We're dying here.
 
 
0 # Even 2014-02-25 09:10
If anyone ever protested too much, it's you.
 
 
-6 # Malcolm 2014-02-24 14:14
I'm totally in favor of renewables, but SURELY you aren't blaming the huge cost of damage in NYC on global warming? Even the most died in the wool alarmists don't make that claim!

Well, some of them do, but they are part of the lunatic fringe.
 
 
+4 # mighead 2014-02-25 07:46
97% of Climate Scientists tell us it's Global Warming...

Now we are warming at double the rate that they predicted 10 years ago; and that rate is still increasing.

The Arctic is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world.

While Donald Trump and you assure me it's all in my head...

Excuse me...but I think I'll go with the scientists on this one...
 
 
0 # Malcolm 2014-02-27 11:46
Yeah, and 99%,said that the sun revolved around the earth. They must have been right-there was, after all, a CONSENSUS!
 
 
+4 # mighead 2014-02-25 07:39
Greenland hasn't been this warm in 44,000 years.

I live in Reno...this is a winter paradise surrounded by the Sierras.
The centerpiece is Squaw Valley.
NV and CA depend on the snowpack for our water.

There is no snow in the Sierras!!!
Our temperatures are 10 degrees and more above average.

Our reservoirs are between 17-30% of average.

While the Mid-West and East Coast are about to get their 3rd Polar Vortex this year; we are experiencing 60 degree weather and May temperatures.

How do you like our snow and ice???
We would rather have it HERE where we
NEED it!!!

WAKE UP!!!

It's the WATER, Stupid!!!
 
 
+8 # Tigre1 2014-02-23 09:02
Just as 'input' to the planet must result...in output and other results somewhere else maybe we ought to consider how too much of anything can unbalance a more delicate, sensitive receiver...that 's you, buddy, and me too...maybe global climate changes are making me react more angrily than if I weren't affected...? long way around to say, hey, step back a bit, label the situation any way you choose, just everybody get focused, we may indeed be dealing with more cataclysmic 'perfect storm'...Fukush ima to wayward Polar Freezebox to storms of apparently increasing force and frequency, at least from John Q. Public's point of view, from here. Brace yourselves, bring your kids and grandkids up wisely, smart, capable...we ain't seen nothing yet.

But for some of us the sun is shining...our good fortune for awhile...
get outside and enjoy every day you can...love when you can.
 
 
-12 # BKnowswhitt 2014-02-23 11:27
Drivel…Jeff Masters is a major Warmanista, especially since the weather channel bought his website and made him a rich man the polar vortex is part of the weather landscape every year…and in both 1976-1977 and 1977-78 it descended further than any of its meanderings this winter and produced more widespread and anomalous cold in the process. 1993-1996, 1959-1960 and 1961-1962 were quite similar. It is an undeniable tendency in humans to believe that what THEY experience is somehow of greater intensity, magnitude, and value as compared to similar occurrences of the past. Especially when 'personal gain' is involved .. as in big $$$ ... this is not Fox News .. so how about some real facts from both sides of the argument .. and then the 'end of world' global warming .. inflammatism of this will be finally quelled and we can concentrate on getting the corrupt 'elected' politicians out of office ..
 
 
-8 # BKnowswhitt 2014-02-23 18:15
I see -7 but i notice no intelligent informed rebuttals ... bring em on friends ... i'd like to hear em ...
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2014-02-23 18:45
We've done it many times before, but you're totally unprepared to keep up your end of the bargain.
 
 
-5 # BKnowswhitt 2014-02-23 19:13
SECOND SOLAR MAX WILL SOON PASS AND THEN WHAT? the computer models that have predicted warming (incorrectly so) for more than 20 years now DO NOT take into consideration any fluctuations in the output of the sun…
Recent solar cycles have had two peaks, often with the sunspots in the solar northern hemisphere peaking first and then the southern hemisphere following two years later. The first max in the north occurring December 2011. The second sometime late in 2013 or early 2014 in the south. The second one already has had a higher solar flux than the first max. We have yet to have a month with a sunspot number of 100 though February may come very close. (Note: they do an 11 month running man to smooth out the curve and determine max and min values).
Yet can see the burst of activity that has occurred since the quiet early fall.

You can see the magnetic fields and spots on the sun getting very close to the solar equator. That usually happens just before they disappear. This is called the butterfly effect. The start after the minimum at between 25 and 45 latitudes and gradually move equatorward (on the solar surface). Notice the gap from the end of cycle 23 and the kick into cycle 24, similar to what happened in the early 1900s.
 
 
-5 # BKnowswhitt 2014-02-23 19:17
There has been a burst of activity since early fall. The magnetic fields and spots on the sun getting very close to the solar equator. That usually happens just before they disappear. This is called the butterfly effect. The start after the minimum at between 25 and 45 latitudes and gradually move equatorward (on the solar surface). Notice the gap from the end of cycle 23 and the kick into cycle 24, similar to what happened in the early 1900s. Cycle 14 in the early 1900s, another cold period (the 106 year cycle), is in yellow on the above graph, was more spikey. Buy the way in the second min in 1911, Niagara Falls froze. This year it had ice and the Great Lakes, in fact, the most ice since the Pinatubo cold winter of 1993/94. Will we see this and more again as we approach the minimum later this decade? ......
 
 
-6 # BKnowswhitt 2014-02-23 19:18
In addition to the 11 year (9-13+) Schwabe cycle, there are 22 year (polarity alternates from cycle to cycle), 53, 88 year, 106, 213, 420 year and longer cycles. We are approaching the resonant minimum of the 106 and 213 and 420 cycles which is why the Russian Pulkovo Observatory think (see paper here) we may be heading to a Maunder Minimum (1600s) not just a Dalton (early 1800s)
 
 
-6 # BKnowswhitt 2014-02-23 19:22
One of signals of a maximum is the polariy flip in the solar hemisphere near the poles. That has occurred but oddly, the magnitudes have flatlined near zero. Is this what happens at a grand minima like the Maunder. We don't know since we were not observing this then. We are living a grand experiment. You can see how each of the last two cycles has shown a decline in magnitude at their peaks..Though the CONUS and most modelers proclaim the solar changes to be too feeble to affect the climate in a major way compared to man's influence and have crossed the line in science to support that claim, the long term evidence is very clear that the sun is the main driver. The average person would laugh at the notion the sun doesn't - since the difference from early morning to mid afternoon in the warmer months can top 35F and the difference from the coldest in winter to warmest in summers is 120 to 140F. Cities have elevated temperatures locally more than 4F over rural areas at night, a good thing in winter. No one disputes the UHI, only whether we should adjust for it gain as we did before.
As to the claim the brightness doesn't change enough to cause a climate shift (0.1% in the ~11 year cycle), they ignore the amplifiers.
 
 
-6 # BKnowswhitt 2014-02-23 19:25
First there is the UV which changes up to 10% and causes warming in low and mid latitudes through ozone chemistry in the high atmosphere that propagates down to the troposphere. This was seen clearly in the high UV/high flux second solar max in cycle 23 in 2001/02 where the polar vortex shrunk and AO stayed + till late winter. We had a warm and very zonal winter. This fit the empirical observation of Karen Labitzke. The very low flux during the lst solar minimum with many sunspotless days led to cold winters in Florida, Mexico, Cuba, india, and other very low latitude locations.
Through changes in cosmic rays which can ion mediated nucleation and production or lack of production of low water clouds which reflect solar radiation (note cosmic rays are diffused and les enter the atmosphere in an active sun).
 
 
-6 # BKnowswhitt 2014-02-23 19:27
Also geogmagnetic acitivity which trails the solar max, tends to cause high latitude storminess. A lack of geomagnetic activity more high latitude blocking (negative AO/NAO). The trend has ben quietly down in winter for the CONUS for now 20 years. Instead of adjusting the hardiness zones north, the USDA may have to adjust them south. Based on Newman 1980, if a true Maunder set in, conditions now experienced in Iowa will shift south to Arkansas...
 
 
-6 # BKnowswhitt 2014-02-23 19:28
There is no doubt that considering all the cold and snow records of recent years, there is some credibility to the warnings and there i solid science behind them. Chicago within the next two weeks may establish a new record for number of sub zero days. The record already was broken at Duluth. Depending on how cold the lst 5 days of the month are, the winter could rank in the top 10 and coldest sin the late 1970. Many cities are in the top 5 snowiest and may end up 1 or 2 depending on whether turns active as the warmth fights back the coming arctic resurgence.
 
 
-4 # BKnowswhitt 2014-02-23 19:32
German meteorologists say that the start of 2013 is now the coldest in 208 years - and now German media has quoted Russian scientist Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov from the St. Petersburg Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory as showing it is proof as he said earlier that we are heading for a "Mini Ice Age." Talking to German media the scientist who first made his prediction in 2005 said that after studying sunspots and their relationship with climate change on Earth, we are now on an "unavoidable advance towards a deep temperature drop."
 
 
-5 # BKnowswhitt 2014-02-23 19:35
Building on observations made by English astronomer Walter Maunder, Dr Abdussamatov, said he had found that the Earth cools and warms in a 200-year cycles. The last big freeze known as the Little Ice Age was between 1650 and 1850 which he said coincided with Maunder’s findings that there had been no sunspots between 1645 and 1715.
 
 
-4 # BKnowswhitt 2014-02-23 19:35
Writing in his blog, Abdussamatov said: "The last global decrease of temperature (the most cold phase of the Little Ice Age) was observed not only in Europe, North America and Greenland, but also in any other part of the world during the Maunder minimum of sunspot activity and of the total solar irradiance in 1645–1715 years.

"All channels in the Netherlands were frozen, glaciers were on the advance in Greenland and people were forced to leave their settlements, inhabited for several centuries.

"The Thames river in London and Seine in Paris were frozen over every year. Humanity has always been prospering during the warm periods and suffering during the cold ones. The climate has never been and will never be stable." His warning that cold weather would hit prosperity follows news that Britain is heading for an unprecedented triple-dip recession as economists warned that the severe weather gripping much of Britain threatened a second successive quarter of falling national output.

Just days after the chancellor predicted that the UK would narrowly avoid a second successive quarter of negative growth – the official definition of recession – experts warned that the combination of heavy snow and sub-zero temperatures might be a crucial factor in whether the economy expanded in the first three months of 2013.
 
 
-6 # BKnowswhitt 2014-02-23 19:36
Now the Russian scientists says the new mini Ice Age will begin next year and will last for 200 years.

"The tendency of decrease in the global Earth temperature started in 2006–2008 will temporarily pause in 2010–2012.

"The increase in TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) within a short 11-year cycle 24 is expected to temporarily compensate the decrease in TSI within the ongoing 2-century variation.

Only the decrease in TSI within the ongoing 11-year cycle 24 accompanied by continued decrease of its 2-century component in 2013–2015 will lead to stable subsequent cooling of our planet, which is expected to reach its minimum in the phase of a deep cooling by 2055–2060.

"The cooling can be similar to the one observed in the whole Europe, North America and Greenland in 1645–1715 in the period of Maunder minimum of solar luminosity and sunspot activity when the temperature will fall by 1–1.5 Celsius degrees down to the mark of the so-called Maunder minimum.

"The regular period of climatic minimum (the stage of global cooling) will last for approximately 45–65 years and the new warming will eventually come afterwards within the regular 2-century solar cycle.

"The deep cooling is expected to be regularly replaced by warming only by the beginning of 22nd century.

"A forecast of the global cooling by the middle of the 21st century and of the new 200-year cycle followed by global warming in the beginning of the 22nd century is shown on the figure."
 
 
+13 # Billy Bob 2014-02-23 19:58
WOW!

That's a LOT of words, saying basically nothing!

You'll have to forgive me for not following the logic of your rant without links.

Are you suggesting that the 10 hottest years on record HAVE NOT occurred since 1998?

Are you also suggesting that we are experiencing ANYTHING like record cold right now?

Have you bothered to look up the word "GLOBAL" in your disproof of global warming?

Did you notice the recent record heat in Australia (roughly the same size as the U.S.) and the Southern Pacific Ocean (MUCH MUCH MUCH bigger than the U.S.)?

They had temperatures around 122-degrees.

http://rt.com/news/record-heat-australia-animals-388/

(as the title says: "No Polar Vortex Here")

IN FACT...

Where's all the cold from the NORTH POLE?

Oh yeah, while the U.S. had a cold snap, the North Pole has had record WARMTH.

-----------------

The U.S. represents 1% of the Earth's surface.

LOOK UP THE WORD "GLOBAL".

NEXT TIME, PROVIDE MEANINGFUL LINKS

---------

nice try, though

LOL!
 
 
+5 # Billy Bob 2014-02-23 20:58
Now how did I get a negative, without "meaningful debate"?

I thought the science deniers on this thread didn't believe in doing that?

Oh well! I guess it's my fault for actually bothering to read their comments - especially since I know they refuse to extend the same courtesy to anyone who doesn't adhere to their agenda.
 
 
-9 # BKnowswhitt 2014-02-23 21:00
The 10 hottest years since 1998 have not occurred in the following decade .. keep drinking the coolade .. but wait sounds more like you need some thorazine pal!!!!!!!!!!
 
 
+7 # Billy Bob 2014-02-23 21:38
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=10+hottest+years+on+record&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

http://na.unep.net/geas/getUNEPPageWithArticleIDScript.php?article_id=53

(YES, I did include a link to Google with the keywords "10 hottest years on record". Obviously, you didn't know how to do that, or you wouldn't have made such an obviously willfully ignorant comment.
 
 
-8 # Malcolm 2014-02-24 00:27
Easterbrook's forecast, like yours, is for colder weather. Warmer weather is, obviously, more favorable for Homo sapiens than cold, so I hope the Warmists' forecasts are better than yours or Don's!

:
Don's calling for a shorter cooling period (he has three alternative scenarios):

Global warming (i.e, the warming since 1977) is over. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) was not the cause of the warming—it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years.

The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.
 
 
-8 # Malcolm 2014-02-24 00:07
My friend, world renowned climate expert Don Easterbrook,mad e similar forecasts back around maybe 2002. He got shit for even CONSIDERING that the sun could affect the climate! Now, what with the GW "hiatus", he's been vindicated. Even Phil Jones admits the climate models which predicted big temperature rises predicated by big CO2 rises have failed, and that the Warmists don't understand why. (I think many skeptics know EXACTLY why the models failed: their basic tenet was that CO2 levels drive climate, and that premise is, and always had been, BS.
 
 
+7 # Billy Bob 2014-02-24 07:53
About 20,000 people work for NASA, and NASA says global warming is real and man-made, unlike your widely discredited friend.
 
 
-6 # BKnowswhitt 2014-02-24 08:48
You got it malcolm. I saw a nat geo 'documentary' on it saying the caps were melting several years ago .. complete bullshit .. the sun runs our show .. i'm no weather scientist but i understand that much. The omission of that element in the global warming formula by the warmanista's prove they are not scientific .. and more like an info mercial of misleading inflammatory bullshit meant to 'hook' us in. Playing their part the media does not care about truth and investigative reporting .. as they are conglomorates now owned by bigger entities and corporations who make the money on the vig .. i.e. the inflammatizatio n of news as entertainment and not on factual reporting ..
 
 
+6 # Billy Bob 2014-02-24 09:12
You're right. You're no weather scientist.
 
 
-8 # Malcolm 2014-02-24 12:16
Biggest scam since Iraq's yellow cake, and other weapons of mass destruction. Maybe biggest fraud since the Bay of Tonklin Resolution.

The most amazing thing, to me, is how well the Warmists have brainwashed virtually all progressives. Being a progressive myself, I always thought we were supposed to be free thinkers, rather than follow Party lines. How naive of me!

Hey,I'm member of a progressive discussion group, and we are hosting two speakers this month. Shirts, Alan Journet, of SOCAN (Southern Oregonians for Climate Action Now) March 1; and Don Easterbrook has agreed to do a presentation on his way hi pome from his seminar at Humboldt State University. He'll be here March 29.

I don't know if you're interested in driving for 2 1/2 hrs, but it would be great to have someone with your obvious intelligence-at either discussion.

Maybe we could get Trollboy-I mean Billy Bob-to drop by; I'd LOVE to shake his hand!
 
 
-8 # Malcolm 2014-02-24 14:17
I think even wackos like trollboy would agree that the only polar ice cap we have is SHRINKING.
 
 
-5 # BKnowswhitt 2014-02-23 19:38
Read it and weap and dry em fast 'fore they freeze my friend ... heheheheh!!!!!! !!!!!!!!
 
 
-6 # BKnowswhitt 2014-02-23 19:40
Oh yeah couldn't put the charts in when you see the referral to those in my text and oh yeah .. not sorry for the verbosity ... just sorry for no 'other side' real scientific reporting stories by Reader Supported News (er Views) .........
 
 
-6 # Dust 2014-02-23 19:00
Well, you're completely correct that human beings have a tendency to forget and ignore the past, and people in the media also tend to fuss and jump about without proper scientific foundations. You are also correct that the polar vortex moves without human impact as an integral dynamic of the climate system, but climate change is projected to amplify exactly this effect:

Shifts in the polar vortex southward due to a weakened jet stream are the product of Stratospheric Sudden Warmings (SSW) in which Arctic westerlies weaken or sometimes reverse direction, causing the jet stream to weaken and allowing colder Arctic air to move south over the eastern US.

Matthewman, N. J.; Esler, J. G.; Charlton-Perez, A. J.; Polvani, L. M. (2009) A New Look at Stratospheric Sudden Warmings Part III: Polar Vortex Evolution and Vertical Structure. Journal of Climate. Mar 2009, Vol. 22 Issue 6

Manney, Gloria L.; Sabutis, Joseph L.; Allen, Douglas R.; Lahoz, William A.; Scaife, Adam A.; Randall, Cora E.; Pawson, Steven; Naujokat, Barbara et al. (2005). "Simulations of Dynamics and Transport during the September 2002 Antarctic Major Warming". Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 62 (3): 69

-continued-
 
 
-6 # Dust 2014-02-23 19:04
Projections of climate dynamics show that climate change likely results in an increase in magnitude of the equatorial-dire ction shift of vortexes from amplified SSW.

Mitchell, Daniel M.; Osprey, Scott M.; Gray, Lesley J.; Butchart, Neal; Hardiman, Steven C.; Charlton-Perez, Andrew J.; Watson, Peter. (2012) The effect of Climate Change on the Variability of Northern Hemisphere Straotspheroc Polar Vortex. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences. Aug 2012, Vol. 69 Issue 8

McClean, Julie L.; Bader, David C.; Bryan, Frank O.; Maltrud, Mathew E.; Dennis, John M.; Mirin, Arthur A.; Jones, Philip W.; Kim, Yoo Yin; Ivanova, Detelina P.; Vertenstein, Mariana; Boyle, James S.; Jacob, Robert L.; Norton, Nancy; Craig, Anthony; Worley, Patrick H. (2011) A Prototype Two-Decade Fully-Coupled Fine-Resolution CCSM Simulation. Ocean Modelling. May 2011, Vol. 39 Issue 1/2
(Note- this simulation observed "intensified and contracted" polar vortexes to a degree that was considered unreasonable, with the result that sea surface temperatures (SST) and sea layer mixing displayed behavior that was beyond acceptable parameters)

Do you have a reference or citation for the 1976 - 1978 observations? I can go dig them out of NOAA, but if you've a ready reference that would be excellent.
 
 
-4 # Tigre1 2014-02-23 19:40
No argument of facts from me, I have zero data on this matter. I agree with you that the personal struggles of anyone probably are more important from that person's point of view than, say, the Donner Party. Go ahead, I intuit you have better illustrative examples.

On that part of your argument, you get no hindrance from me. Be honest, though: just because somebody somewhere has had it rougher, does that lessen the cold someone affected by it feels now? Remember that they have no subjective comparison...it 's d@$$^% cold, no matter what you cerebrally decide is allowable...it is a good idea to publish real information...y ou'd might agree that, basically, that's the biggest idea we've got, to value and publish the truth so everyone can make informed decisions...tha nks for the info, I'll check it out.
 
 
-8 # Malcolm 2014-02-24 12:19
I see that their are people here who've done all the requisite research to,um, PROVE that birds don't disprove gravity! How NICE, don'tcha think?
 
 
-11 # Malcolm 2014-02-23 23:50
Interesting how many people are so reluctant to hear the truth that they simply give you thumbs down.

Just like people wanting to believe their personal experiences are more important than others' they also seem to have a powerful need to cling to their beliefs, and tune out all information that might change their minds!
 
 
+6 # Billy Bob 2014-02-24 00:02
Kind of like the people who decide global warming is a hoax because it's cold outside their house.
 
 
-7 # BKnowswhitt 2014-02-24 12:02
Global warming man made is A HOAX .. why do the warministas not take into account heating from the sun and sun spots idiot? The main 'beef' i laid on your plate which is i imagine tough for hard heads like you to digest ..
 
 
-4 # Dust 2014-02-24 15:18
I'm confused as to why you claim solar input is not considered in climate assessment:

Rind, D.H., Lean, J.L., Jonas, J. 2014. The Impact of Different Absolute Solar Irradiance Values on Current Climate Model Simulations. Journal of Climate Vol. 27(3)

Bodas-Salcedo A, Williams K, Yokohata T, et al. 2014. Origins of the Solar Radiation Biases over the Southern Ocean in CFMIP2 Models. Journal Of Climate Vol. 27(3)

Solanki, S., Krivova, N., Haigh, J.D. 2013. Solar Irradiance Variability and Climate. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics Vol. 51(1)

Scafetta, N. 2012. Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter-Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle. Jurnal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestri al Physics Vol. 80

Dima, M. and Lohman, G. 2009. Conceptual model for millenial climate variability: a possible combined solar-thermohal ine circulation origin for the ~1,500 year cycle. Climate Dynamics Vol. 32(2/3)

I'm sure there are some simple box models intended to only examine one process or similar that don't include it, but as solar input is the primary external input (modified by Milankovich cycles), why would it not be included? Can you cite some reference showing that solar input and variations are not included?
 
 
+5 # Billy Bob 2014-02-24 18:27
Um... It doesn't fit his political agenda.

And, have you known him/her to use any meaningful references?
 
 
-3 # Dust 2014-02-24 20:33
Well, I had hope for Bob, as I'm not totally familiar with his postings. He does a lot of cut and paste, which may contain some interesting material. But I don't understand his assertions regarding solar impact and climate modeling.

Krivova, N., S.K. Solanki, 2004: Solar Variability and Global Warming: A Statistical Comparison Since 1850. Advances in Space Research, Vol. 34(2)

Lean, J., D. Rind, 1998: Climate Forcing by Changing Solar Radiation.  Journal of Climate Vol. 11(12)

Rind, D., D. Shindell, J. Perlwitz, J. Lerner, P. Lonergan, 2004: The Relative Importance of Solar and Anthropogenic Forcing of Climate Change Between the Maunder Minimum and the Present.  Journal of Climate, Vol. 17(5)

Bard, E. and Frank, M. 2006. Climate change and solar variability: What's new under the sun? Earth & Planetary Science Letters. Vol. 248(1/2)
 
Stott, Peter A.; Jones, Gareth S.; Mitchell, John F.B. 2003. Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change? . Journal of Climate. Vol. 16(24)
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2014-02-24 20:39
You're making it more complicated than it is. Think of this as a chess match and you're looking at his strategy. His strategy is to ridicule and undermine. That's it. You're assuming he's a fair-minded debater who's really weighing all the alternatives and making a decision after serious deliberation. That's not what's going on. When he makes comments about scientists not taking the sun into account, first of all, on the surface, that's a pretty asinine comment to make. Of course they are. Second of all, the whole purpose of that kind of remark is to put a shadow of doubt over whether or not they actually know what they're doing.

It's a strategy. And, it shows that he definitely has a biased agenda.
 
 
-6 # Malcolm 2014-02-25 08:24
Thanks for the comedic relief, Trollboy. You're generally way too serious:
"His strategy is to ridicule and undermine. That's it. "

Have you taken a look in your mirror lately? You're describing YOURSELF, man!
 
 
-4 # Dust 2014-02-23 19:04
-Duplicate-
 
 
+7 # Billy Bob 2014-02-23 23:53
Check out this, more honest satelight picture of the polar vortex:

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2014/01/another-week-of-climate-disruption-news-january-5-2014/

Notice that the ONLY area that looks blue is mostly in the Northern U.S., but the rest of the visible globe is RED (including the actual Arctic)?
 
 
+6 # Billy Bob 2014-02-24 00:01
Here's a pretty detailed article, discussing the fact that Winter doesn't disprove global warming.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/06/can-global-warming-be-real-if-its-cold-in-the-u-s-um-yes/

While we're at it, the fact that birds can fly doesn't disprove the existence of gravity

Also, nighttime does not disprove the existence of the sun.
 
 
-8 # Malcolm 2014-02-24 12:36
Several Warmists here have continually made the claim that there's PROOF that CO2 drives temperature rises. Disregarding for the moment that-historical ly-CO2 rises FOLLOW temperature increases, they also make claims that "climate modeling" can predict just how much a given amount of atmospheric CO2 concentration will increase global temperatures.

I've yet to see this PROOF, but I would like to point out that the

NASA's modeling has come up with the EXACTING forecasts. Ready? By the end of the 21st century, if we don't do some drastic CO2 redux, the worlds's average temperature will rise by 2°to 6° F.

So much for accuracy! Who , without embarrassment, would make a forecast like that?! 6° is, duh, 300% of 2°.

But based on this GIGO, they're willing to destroy, first, the world economy with carbon taxes; and, second, build MORE nuclear fucking power plants!

And some of their sheepish followers have the audacity to call themselves Liberals, Progressives, Democrats, and/or ENVIRONMENTALIS TS. It's bloody mind-boggling!
 
 
-8 # Malcolm 2014-02-24 12:57
One last point, then I've got work to do. One big problem with having sane discussions on global warming is that we can't even agree on the basic temperature data.

My skeptic acquaintances keep claiming that temperature records have been altered. Some Warmists prefer to us the word "adjusted".

Other Warmists, like Trollboy, deny that the data have been changed at all.

How the hell can we have reasonable discussions without agreeing to the most basic data?
Personally, I've seen tons of temperature "records" that directly contradict the charts and graphs I find at WARMIST websites. Supposedly these are "original data". But, honestly, I have no way to know if they are in fact original data, or simply data fabricated by some skeptic.
 
 
-9 # Malcolm 2014-02-24 12:59
I did-FINALLY-fin d what appears at least to be proof that one of the most controversial facts of all (instrumental temperature records) have been changed by the WARMIST contingency, and changed DRASTICALLY. Before the change, in their 1999 diagram, they showed 1998's high annual temperature in the USA as fourth or fifth highest on record. But a decade later, their diagrams have been adjusted so much that 1998 magically has been awarded the hottest year on record!

Now, I suspect some meathead will totally shine me on, and attempt to divert yall's attention with some crud about this only being data for the USA. Fine; that's not the point though, is it?

The point is that I THINK I've found at least one smoking gun, proving that the most powerful Warmists are changing the data.
 
 
+7 # Billy Bob 2014-02-24 13:19
Malcolm, Look up the word "global", and stop trying to deny facts about long-term global mean temperature trends, while relying on temporary temperatures local to the U.S

-----------

I gave you 6 basic tasks to accomplish if you wanted to be taken seriously:

1. Dispute the 97% of scientists who disagree with you, using facts. You failed to do that.

2. Dispute the 200 major organizations that all agree global warming is real and man-made (using objective facts). You failed to do that.

3. Disprove that the 10 hottest years ever recorded have all happened since 1998 (using objective facts). You failed to do that.

4. Prove any points you have with valid, objective links. You failed to do that.

5. Look up the word "global" and adjust your babble accordingly. You failed to do that.

6. Argue with substance, rather than smart-assed bullshit and failed "humor" for distraction. You failed to do that.

YOU FAILED.
 
 
-6 # BKnowswhitt 2014-02-24 18:05
Your first premise is completely incorrect. 97% of Climatologists you mean perhaps however there are more that dis agree than agree. And if you looked at what i put in here talk to me in five years when you've moved to a warm climate ..
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2014-02-24 18:26
Still waiting for meaningful links...
 
 
+5 # Cdesignpdx 2014-02-24 13:55
Hey Malcolm,
Do you work for Exxon Mobile or just own a lot of their stock?
 
 
+6 # Billy Bob 2014-02-24 14:52
No. He works for the cement industry, which is nearly as bad as the oil industry. So, he can talk all he wants about "not being part of the problem", so long as you stick to the subject of oil.

DON'T DARE mention cement, though. I quoted a scientific article that mentioned cement production as one of the main culprits in global warming, and Malcolm went on such an obscenity filled looney tirade, that the administrators had to remove his comments.

I read them first.

So he's NOT objective about this. He's worried that if we admit global warming is real and man-made (like science has already proven), one of the 1st things we'll have to do about it is regulate the emissions coming from cement factories. Any discussion of the need to regulate the cement industry could set him off. So don't do that...

MAKE MALCOLM ANGRY!

MALCOLM SMASH!
 
 
-8 # Malcolm 2014-02-24 15:23
Um, meathead, that's quite the tirade. You just can't resist those ad hominem attacks, can you?

Where in the world did you get the idea I worked in the CEMENT industry?

Further proof that you're nothing but a troll, boy.

Sheesh! Cement industry, indeed.

Even if you're accusation had the slightest bit of truth to it, so what? Do you judge everyone in the cement industry as bad people?

Do you, by ANY chance, live in a house, apartment, or hotel that was built using cement? Do you even know what cement IS?

Whoa-I just realized that you, being Trollboy, live under a bridge! I assume the bridge is built using cement, true?
 
 
+3 # Billy Bob 2014-02-24 18:24
So, you agree that the cement industry should be severely regulated, which would cut down on profit margins. You agree that that's necessary, right?

This time, try answering without going into hysterics and childish insults. Let's see if that's possible...
 
 
-6 # Malcolm 2014-02-24 20:48
Excuse me? I'll be happy to answer, irrespective that I'd be troll feeding, but only after you answer MY question: where in hell did you get the idea I was in the cement business?

Somehow, I get the felling you're trying to set me up, but anything you come up with should be easy enough to deal with, Trollboy :-)
 
 
+3 # Billy Bob 2014-02-24 23:33
Your own comments from the last psychotic tirade of the last thread.


Maybe it wasn't "the cement business". Maybe it was construction, relying heavily on the cement business. Maybe it was another field totally reliant on cement. It's hard to remember it perfectly. I didn't get much of a chance to see it. Your comment was only up for about 10 minutes before they had to take it down, after you went into a looney foul-mouthed conniption about me "threatening your bread and butter" (You used that exact phrase), and angrily remarking that you "work for a living".

It's ok, Malcolm. Very few people are still paying attention.

It's also ok to just come clean.

The main point, is that you're obviously very touchy about the subject of science, and the fact that science has proven global warming. And in your case, it boils down to the fact that you fear government regulation of the cement industry, because that would "cut into your bread and butter".
 
 
-5 # Malcolm 2014-02-25 08:34
There you go again, trollboy: "His strategy is to ridicule and undermine. That's it. " why not try NOT to ridicule everyone who disagrees with you?

But thanks for telling me where you thought you learned about my involvement with the cement industry.

Alas, I have none. I have no "profit margin" I guess I should beg forgiveness, after confessing my sins to you, God of global warming righteousness.

I confess. I built my earth sheltered, passively heated home. I could have used wood instead of concrete, but I live in a wet climate. Won't work. Mea culpa.

What's my penance, Trollboy? Shall I do some Hail Billy's?

I know-you can order me to submit to an eternity of name calling by Trollboy.
 
 
+3 # Billy Bob 2014-02-24 23:56
So, you agree that the cement industry should be severely regulated, which would cut down on profit margins. You agree that that's necessary, right?

This time, try answering without distractions and childish insults. Let's see if that's possible...
 
 
-5 # Malcolm 2014-02-25 08:37
I do not agree. Nor do I disagree. I have no opinion; I'm not familiar with the cement industry. Perhaps you'd be able to tell me what THEIR sins are?
 
 
-5 # Malcolm 2014-02-25 09:27
While you're at it, trollboy, tell me three things:
1. Does your home have a concrete foundation?
2. What would you suggest using INSTEAD of concrete?
3. What building materials satisfy the AGW gods' quest against CO2?
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2014-02-25 10:30
Which is it? Do you have an opinion, or not?

You seem pretty defensive about the cement industry, for someone who "has no opinion".

Instead of turning my questions into counter-questio ns, yet again (trying to avoid the subject), why don't you actually answer them first, this time?

Malcolm, If you're having a hard time being honest, your constant attempts to change the subject will always be pretty transparent.
 
 
-5 # Malcolm 2014-02-25 11:12
I really don't understand your odious behavior. I am not in the least "defensive" about the cement industry. I simply asked, and ask again, what's wrong with the cement industry. You, Trollboy are certainly acting OFFENSIVELY, but why? You MUST have a reason.

I don't have an opinion because, one, I don't know why you're so against cement, and second, I don't know how society can get along without it.

If that's what you call defensive, so sorry, but that's your personal issue, not mine.

Maybe you could spell out what question you think I'm trying to avoid, because I'm at a complete loss. Glad to answer, but I need something to answer to. What's your beef with cement? That would be a starting point.
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2014-02-25 12:41
For the 3rd time, do you agree that, since emissions from cement factories account for a large amount of CO2 emissions, which contribute to global warming (as professional scientists have already proven), that it should be more strictly regulated to curb those emissions?

Is that clear enough for you?

Can you answer it without the insults, and distractions?

I don't think you can, because so far, you've tried everything not to.
 
 
-4 # Malcolm 2014-02-25 18:10
Trollboy, why the Ad hominem attacks? I absolutely have nOt tried anything of the sort. Get a grip, boy!

What I DID was request that you tell me what your objections to cement plants are. Exactly what I said in the very post you just finished replying to, fer crissakes!

Finally, FINALLY, you managed to tell wtf your beef was with cement plants. Coulda been noise, air pollution, working conditions-any number of things. Coulda been water pollution. Coulda been clear cutting forests to excavate limestone or marble. Coulda been some company was turning caves, stalagmites and stalactites into cement (as happened here when I was a wee lad, villain one "Ideal Cement".

Of all the things a person could object to, the worst you could come up with is carbon dioxide? CO2? That's it? For reals?

Based on your concerns, and taking your word for it that "cement factories account for a large amount of CO2 emissions...", why of course I'm concerned. I don't know how much regulations there are regarding cement manufacturing and the production of CO2 there is NOW, if any.
 
 
-4 # Malcolm 2014-02-25 18:11
I would certainly hope that any such regulations-if there are any-would be immediately repealed. As I've made clear to you over and over, I've seen zero proof that CO2 changes earth's temperature in any measurable way. I've asked for proof, and all you seem able to do is keep repeating your tired mantra, "because THEY say so, and THEY are "Scientists". That's not proof, as you SHOULD know; its hearsay.

Now. Let's assume for the moment that cement manufacturing really does raise earth's temperature. How do you propose capturing the CO2 you are blaming? Do you have a plan for doing this?
 
 
-11 # Malcolm 2014-02-24 14:20
Neither. I do own a lot of stock, but it's all GREEN stock. Apple's my fave.
I also own a lot of PV power-6KW-and passive heated earth sheltered home, solar hot water, solar powered golf cart, hydraulic ram water pump I designed, which uses no electric power or fossil fuel and has but two moving parts, and a geothermal heat pump. I've also built several custom rental homes, built to "Super Good Cents" standards.

What about YOU, Cd? What are YOU doing to promote renewables, to save energy, or reduce your-chuckle-ca rbon footprint?

What are ANY of you doomsayers doing, other than waiting for Obombya-another chuckle-to stop the pipeline of your choice, outlaw fracking or ban offshore oil wells?
 
 
-3 # Marxian 2014-02-24 16:57
Want to really understand what is happening with the rapid changes in climate and temperatures? Check out the HAARP program now operating on Nicky Tesla's theory for weather control. There are 5 special antennas operating around the planet near the arctic circle, and one in the Antarctic run by China!
 
 
+3 # Billy Bob 2014-02-24 18:32
Your theory certainly has as much credibility as Malcolm's or BKnowshit's.
 
 
-6 # Malcolm 2014-02-24 20:54
I'm a bit skeptical, but your theory is no less credible than that of these crazy alarmists.
 
 
+5 # Billy Bob 2014-02-24 23:37
Oh, that's clever. I really liked the way you just copied the same thing I said. Do you ever think for yourself, or do you just parrot what other people tell you to say?
 
 
-5 # Malcolm 2014-02-25 08:39
I didn't. I am not in the habit of reading posts farther down than the one I'm commenting on.

At least I gave you another shot at insulting someone: "His strategy is to ridicule and undermine. That's it."
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2014-02-25 09:12
Actually, my comment is above yours.

I said something. Then, 2 hours later (look at the time listed) you said the same thing, but reworded it to your agenda. Then, and this is the funny part, told me that you didn't do it.

Is this the same kind of persuasion you hope will make us all stop listening to scientists about global warming? It's a very typical conservative behavior - do something in plain sight, and then pretend it never happened, and wonder why no one believes you.
 
 
-5 # Malcolm 2014-02-25 11:16
Trollboy, SURELY you know by map now that, when you send a reply to someone's post, it appears AFTER everyone else's responses? Have you seriously not figured that out?

I'm pretty bored with you calling me a liar, based on your own failure to grasp a fairly easy concept.

Believe me, I would NEVER copy something of yours. It's WAY beneath me.

Question: how long are you going to pretend I copied your crummy post?
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2014-02-25 12:46
My comment appeared 2 hours before yours. Your comment used the exact same remark, but reworded it to insult liberals (like me, since I agree with science that global warming is real and man made), rather than the conservatives I referred to (like you, since you don't believe science has any right to weigh in on scientific matters).

SURELY you know by now that the time and date you write a comment appears right next to the comment, and that, since your comment appeared directly under mine and stated the exact same thing, but with a different butt of the joke, that it's pretty obvious to anyone that you copied my post.

In fact, I thought that was the whole point.

If you're "bored", no one's asking you to troll every thread that has any connection whatsoever to climate change and global warming. You weren't invited. You invited yourself.
 
 
-4 # Malcolm 2014-02-25 18:12
Yawn.
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2014-02-25 22:17
It's ok, Malcolm. Go back to sleep. Let the grownups handle this discussion.
 
 
-3 # Malcolm 2014-02-25 22:59
That's the nicest thing someone has told me in days! Do I really look that youthful to you, trollboy? Thank-you!
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2014-02-25 12:49
Trollgirl, SURELY you know by now that, when you send a reply to someone's post, it appears AFTER everyone else's responses? Have you seriously not figured that out?

I'm pretty bored with you pretending you're not lying about something right in front of our faces, based on your own failure to grasp a fairly easy concept.

Believe me, you DID copy something of mine, even though it was way above your head.

Question: how long are you going to pretend we can't read something you wrote on this very thread?
 
 
-4 # Malcolm 2014-02-25 18:13
Um, who is troll girl? She your new girlfriend?
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2014-02-25 22:24
Have you been using that same comeback since the 5th grade?

I bet that crack really had 'em rollin' in the isles... ALL THOSE YEARS AGO!

You must have been a real "hep cat, daddy-o"!
 
 
-3 # Malcolm 2014-02-25 23:00
Even an old fart like me knows that it's win poor form to call your n ew girlfriend "that crack".
 
 
-1 # Malcolm 2014-02-27 11:49
How do we sign up for rain? Having a minor drought here. I want rain, though I'd give it to California, now that we have a choice. That's where most the country' stood comes from.

Btw, they're expected to get 4-6" in the next couple of days!!!!

Thank-you, HAARP!
 
 
-5 # BKnowswhitt 2014-02-24 18:23
Malcolm. You followed what i said by your friend who is an expert on this stuff like mine though i protect his identity from some of the nutcases who reside here. Billy Bob is so adamant. However i rebutted the main theme of the story. That this polar Vortex #3 is not unusual nor man made based. You notice they claim to know however they can't address what they don't nor give us credit for some real critical info. Global Warming is now caused by the hot air of those who must be correct .. at all costs ... man still biggest threat to end of this civilization ...
 
 
-5 # Dust 2014-02-24 18:29
I don't see anything in the story claiming that the polar vortex is "man made based" or unusual. I didn't watch the video though... perhaps it's in there...
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2014-02-24 18:33
I'm just waiting for some meaningful, objective links disproving global warming...
 
 
-7 # Malcolm 2014-02-24 21:48
These nut cases are very clever. They've managed to convince "we the sheeple" that pretty much ANYTHING unusual is caused by global warming. They should be proud of themselves, if they weren't going to cause so much human suffering.
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2014-02-24 23:39
They're so effective and deceptive, the way they've used scientific FACT to convince people of things that are true, but that we "the sheeple" don't want to hear.

How nutty is THAT!?!
 
 
-6 # Malcolm 2014-02-25 08:41
Facts that have been "altered", deliberately skewed to scare you sheep.
"Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath…..
in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country"-James Hansen.

That FACT has been ELIMINATED-chan ged, denied by your PR based "scientists.

I KNOW this isn't global. Still it's important enough to NASA that they had to make sure you sheeple didn't see the TRUTH about USA temperatures.
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2014-02-25 09:14
What do you have against scientists? It isn't enough for me that "you KNOW" something. I'd rather listen to people who ACTUALLY KNOW what they're talking about and can back it up. You can't.
 
 
-5 # Malcolm 2014-02-25 11:19
In addition to dodging the issue, you're showing poor reading comprehension, trollboy.

I have nothing against scientists, per se. For crissakes my career was in science; my education was in science.

On the other hand, I abhor "scientists" who fake the data, send emails asking other scientists to hide inconvenient data, and don't deserve the title of "scientist". They should be called what they are: Charletons, Con-men, and lying bastards.
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2014-02-25 12:50
Who faked any data? Give me an objective link.

I've asked for that at least 437 times on this thread alone, but you're unwilling to do that.

LINKS, MALCOLM!!!!!!!
 
 
-4 # Malcolm 2014-02-25 18:25
WHO FAKED DATA. SHeesh, trollboy, how many times do you have to be told?

First of all, did you not read any of the "hide the decline" emails that were such a hot news item until MSM dropped them like a global heated potato?

Here, try these two links. Please fight the urge to claim I only have ONE link, as you've done in the past. If you can't resist, I'll overwhelm you with statements by your AGW gods that prove they are lying, covering up their data alterations, and scaring all you sheeple who can't see through their shenanigans. THINK, trollboy! Don't be a useful idiot, repeating the scam your masters brainwashed you with!

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
Map showing 1999 data, before revision.

Http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.gif
Map showing altered temps

Enjoy, trollboy.
 
 
-2 # Billy Bob 2014-02-25 22:04
Link #1 is 15 years old and specifically states that:

"A picture of how U.S. climate change during the past half century compared with the rest of the world is shown in Figure 2. This map shows that the trend has been toward warmer temperatures in most of the world. There has been nearly ubiquitous warming in the tropics, especially in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, where the largest warming coincides with the location of more frequent strong El Niños. The strongest warming has been in Alaska and northern Asia"

[IN OTHER WORDS, YOU DIDN'T READ YOUR OWN LINK, BECAUSE IT DISAGREES WITH YOU]

------------

Link #2 is a graph showing global temperatures risings over time.

[IN OTHER WORDS, YOU DIDN'T EVEN LOOK AT YOUR OWN GRAPH]
 
 
-3 # Malcolm 2014-02-25 23:02
Right jeez, maybe I shoulda looked at those graphs! You're a riot, trollboy. Just because your gurus at NASA got caught with their pants down, don't lay that kind of diversion on me.
 
 
-2 # Billy Bob 2014-02-25 23:33
Again, What are you talking about? Who got "caught with pants down"?

Are you upset that you used a link to prove a point without reading it first, and then found out that it proved MY point instead?
 
 
-3 # Malcolm 2014-02-26 01:01
Um, trollboy, why do you suppose the second link-you know, the one you said shows GLOBAL temperatures? Why is it labelled "US TEMPERATURES.

Seems to me you're being TOTALLY disingenuous, trollboy.

And that first one? Did you happen to notice all the years that were HOTTER than 1998? Yes? Good. Now, please also notice that, on the rigged graph, 1998 is the HOTTEST YEAR OF ALL.

It's a sham, trollboy. You can try all you want to pretend it's not, but in your heart of hearts you KNOW. YOU KNOW, TROLLBOY!

And, to save you from embarrassing yourself EVEN MORE, be sure to notice that thes graphs each come from Giss.nasa.gov. NOT from a skeptic website.

Do you get it yet, trollboy?
 
 
-3 # Malcolm 2014-02-26 01:17
Interesting how trollboy doesn't respond when he makes foolish mistakes, and then blames others, but gets caught at it.
 
 
-2 # Billy Bob 2014-02-26 10:36
You wrote this comment 15 minutes later than the last one troll-girl. And you did it at 11:17 PM EST. I was asleep. Do you have anything better to do than write stupid comments and then expect a reply 15 minutes later, after most of us, in my time zone, have gone to bed?

Now, troll-girl, Did you notice that the graph you showed, shows temperatures in the U.S. going UP since 1880?

Seriously, Malcolm, are you too stupid to read a graph?

If there's anybody else still paying attention to the "MALCOLM: PAY ATTENTION TO ME BECAUSE I'M LONELY SHOW", could you please explain to him how graphs work?

I have better things to do than to teach him something he should have learned back in the '50s when he was in high school.
 
 
-3 # Billy Bob 2014-02-25 22:16
So, If this is your reply to my request for an "objective link", THANK YOU.

It CLEARLY AGREES WITH ME!
 
 
-3 # Malcolm 2014-02-25 23:03
Finally!
 
 
-2 # Billy Bob 2014-02-25 23:34
Huh?
 
 
+1 # wmarcelle@earthlink.net 2014-02-25 13:30
BILLY BOB … You appear to be a pretty smart guy to me and I certainly agree with you. But I'm mystified at your insistence on arguing with someone who doesn't get it. I've learned that one of the major keys to understanding our species is this: we are highly evolved creatures compared to the rest of the creatures around us, but not only are we not very smart -- we're stupid!
 
 
-2 # Dust 2014-02-25 14:00
Actually, it's the process I find fascinating. Malcolm and Bill Whitt continue to make unsupported charges using extremely broad language that sounds, on the surface, to be totally reasonable. Consider Malcolm's post immediately above - who would NOT condemn scientists who fake data? The subtext is that no climate researcher could ever conclude that human beings affect climate, and anyone who does so is dishonest, and his references is to emails from the University of East Anglia servers.

As Bill Bob (thank you, David James Duncan!) correctly points out, however, NO data sets or supporting evidence is ever provided. Malcolm claims to "finally" have discovered a smoking gun, but he leaves such in terrible disarray and never cites the supposed data, nor does he discuss how he analyzed it or why he does not publish his results, if they in fact exist.

Bill Whitt complains that climate models ignore solar cycles and inputs, which is simply and manifestly a lie, as the citations of the papers discussing solar input and variability show.

My fascination is with the endless congitive dissonance displayed by both Malcolm and Bill Whitt, and the degree to which they will attempt to vaguely claim both moral and scientific high ground on the subject without ever once behaving like the open-minded and scientifically- grounded individuals they claim to champion.
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2014-02-25 15:46
Wow, Dust!

That was one of the most well-worded replies I've ever read.

Your writing in this comment is a good example of how the process of writing itself can help us to understand our own thoughts. I doubt I could have written a reply that was as well worded as yours, but reading yours has helped me work out my OWN logic, for doing something that seems so futile.


wmarcelle@earthlink.net is absolutely right. We aren't going to get through to Malcolm, & Billknows.... That's not really the point.

I guess the only reason to continue engaging a troll is to try to defend the truth from the lies.

But, judging from Malcolm's -107 for his first comment (back when a lot of people were still paying attention to this thread), the truth really doesn't need a lot of help from me. It's obvious that people aren't really falling for Malcolm's schtick.

One of the most pertinent points you made, however, is that an effective troll will make unsupported claims that, superficially, seem pretty reasonable. Malcolm is attempting to do that.

Personally, I'm waivering in my commitment to the anti-troll cause. I still put up somewhat of a fight, but not nearly as much as I used to (about 2 years ago).

If I honestly knew there were a number of people truly sitting on the fence on this issue, who could actually be swayed by a persuasive argument, I might feel better about the time I spend on Malcolm.

Of course, Malcolm trolls because he thinks it will work.
 
 
-1 # Dust 2014-02-25 16:43
Well, the question of whether it's worth it is pretty subjective, I think. I do agree that many people might read comments by Malcolm or Bill Whitt, stated with such convincing, inerrant "common sense" incredulity that anyone might think that human beings affect climate, and walk away thinking them to be accurate.

On the other hand, the USA now ranks 30th in math and 23rd in science in terms of high school student performance. By and large, our governing bodies ignore or actively seek to degrade and defund education, a significant portion of our adult population makes lack of education a point of pride, and the current Chairman of the House Committee on Space, Science, and Technology Lamar Smith has absolutely no scientific training. So maybe this is all par for the course.

Neither Malcolm nor Bill Whitt (assuming they are not the same person) are stupid, so the question is: 1) Do they truly believe what they are saying?; 2) Are they paid shills?; 3) Are they simply exhibiting troll behavior in common with a general sociopathology? If they believe what they are saying, that's fine, but they cannot claim scientific support until they are sufficiently honest to provide it.
 
 
-4 # Malcolm 2014-02-25 19:28
How I wish I were paid for my beliefs. Are you? Are YOU a sociopath, or simply a closed minded ass?
 
 
-4 # Malcolm 2014-02-25 19:44
I got a national merit scholarship Letter of Commendation for scoring way above the 99th percentile in math...I made very good grades in both math AND science, as well.

The USA May rank poorly in those subjects "NOW, but it was pretty far out in front when I was in school, so please-don't include us old farts in your generalizations , young'n!
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2014-02-25 22:07
When was that letter, Malcolm?

How old are you right now?

LOL

-----

You're kind of resting on some pretty old laurels there, old man!

LOL

P.S. Did you also get a good report card in the 5th grade?

P.S.S. You can't really still rely on 6th grade science from 60 years ago, to get you by on this.
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2014-02-25 22:14
I think Malcolm's comments over the past few hours point to "3", being the answer.
 
 
-3 # Malcolm 2014-02-26 01:04
I did get good grades in 5th grade, in mrs. Atkins's class. Thanks for asking. Wow, my memory works, after all these eons :)

I did point at "3", just recently. Teach asked which number was closest to your IQ :-)
 
 
-1 # Malcolm 2014-02-27 11:53
I'm almost certain that I'm a totally different organism than Bill Whitt.

Are you telling me that you and trollboy are one and the same? What-geneticall y conjoined at the lip?
 
 
-4 # Malcolm 2014-02-25 19:26
Don't spend time on this on my account. And who are you calling "troll", trollboy?

I think you're an honest guy, though a total follower, believing the AGW scam, not to mention relying on Obombya and the others in the Democratic Party to "make it all better" FOR YOU, rather than taking positive actions yourself. Hell's bells, trollboy, even a skeptic (me) has left you in the dust insofar as cutting my "carbon footprint"! Aren't you embarrassed? Not because I've done all this renewable energy stuff, green building stuff, electric vehicle stuff-no, only because you do nothing but rant and rave about the horrors of co2 and do nothing positive YOURSELF!

I'm disappointed in all people who-presumably due to lacking a science background-have to rely others to for their decision making.

On the other hand, we're alike insofar as trying to convince the folks who need. Clarification what to believe.

The big difference, as I see it, is that, while I'm largely convinced that AGW is a scam, for reasons I've spelled out repeatedly, I, and not you- are willing to admit that there's always room for new evidence. (Indeed, Gore's new evidence convinced me to change my eArlier beliefs from believer to skeptic. Thank-you mr. Gore!)
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2014-02-25 22:08
That's pretty big of you, Malcolm. You admit that I'm honest.

I wish I could say the same for you.
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2014-02-25 15:48
Thank you for the compliment. Honestly, I don't have a good defense for it. I like Dust's reply, and I added a few comments of my own about it (in reply to Dust), but you may be right.
 
 
-4 # Malcolm 2014-02-25 19:32
If you're thanking wmarcelle@earthlink.net, I'm impressed with your humility-he was telling you that you're stupid!

Even I don't think you're STUPID. Troll, yes, but smart. As far as trolls go.
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2014-02-25 22:09
It IS pretty stupid to treat you as though you deserved a response, isn't it?
 
 
-4 # Malcolm 2014-02-25 19:56
Ooh, Twilight Zone! I gave you two links, which are, indeed, the smoking gun. Since trollboy continued his whines, I checked, and discovered they are GONE. As in, yanked. I can't explain it. I KNOW they were posted, because I corrected a copying mistake: the "h" in "http" was missing.

Whatever, I'll try again. Enjoy, trollboy. I hope to hear your response, free of diversionary language, please.

Can you find an excuse for the malfeasance shown in these two graphs?

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
Map showing 1999 data, before revision

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.gif
Map showing revised temps.

Btw, these graphs were prepared by your HEAD AGW GOD-NASA.

Btw again: I already sent you an earlier post proving fraudulent data reporting. Didn't you even bother to read it? It's a fabulous read, trollboy!
 
 
-4 # Malcolm 2014-02-25 20:00
Just because I'm such a helpful fellow, I'll post it again-save y'all the effort of searching for it: (I have access to a whole lot of dirt on these ol'boys, and will gladly share.

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@[snipped] , mhughes@
[snipped]
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@[snipped],t.osborn@[snipped]
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers, Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit

Oh, for your reading pleasure, I'll post this again. Obviously you either did not read it, or swept it under the figurative rug.
 
 
-4 # Malcolm 2014-02-25 21:52
James Hansen said,

"Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath…..
in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country"
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2014-02-25 22:11
You left out a few things:

1. He was talking about the U.S. alone, and specifically stated that the EARTH was undeniably warming.

2. He wrote that 15 years ago, and things have gotten CONSIDERABLY worse, since then.
 
 
-3 # Malcolm 2014-02-26 01:10
I don't think it matters how much "worse"the earth has/
Has not gotten over the last 15 years, trollboy. The POINT is that NASA, and specifically James Hansen, lied, by rewriting the history of the USA average temperature.

Tell ya what, trollboy, that was a nice try to sidetrack, but it didn't work. What It at DID do, though was convince me that you're a hopeless game-player. Tonight your game is "yah-but". I'm not playing your game anymore.
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2014-02-25 22:46
James Hansen also said,

"Global temperature, in contrast, had passed 1930s values by 1980 and the world has warmed at a remarkable rate over the last 25 years."

-I'm using your own link to show what a dishonest troll you are. Didn't you think I'd bother to read it?

DID YOU BOTHER TO READ IT?

-----------

ALSO, Remember, This article is 15 years old. Global temperatures, and even American temperatures have continued to rise since then.
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2014-02-25 22:12
Why are you showing us pasted emails? Are we supposed to treat that as a serious link?

Do you get emails suggesting pills for breast enlargement? Do you feel the need to share those with us as well? Why not! They'd be just as germane to the discussion.
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2014-02-25 22:10
Malcolm, Have you ACTUALLY LOOKED AT your OWN links?

LOL!

Is it your secret objective, to discredit global warming deniers by posing as one, using annoying behavior to get attention, and then "accidentally" posting links that specifically disagree with your own stated opinion?
 
 
-3 # Malcolm 2014-02-26 01:11
.
 
 
-1 # Dust 2014-02-26 01:16
There's no malfeasance. You have to RTFM.

I'll explain it in the morning.
 
 
0 # Cappucino 2014-02-26 00:54
Y'all, come on!! This was the exact plot of *The Day After Tomorrow* exactly ten years ago. The polar vortex was CAUSED by global warming. Seriously, this theory has been around for a very long time, and a disaster movie actually got it right a decade ago.

The unfortunate thing about this apocalypse, of course, is that it won't feature Jake Gyllenhall being noble while he chases wolves around NYC, or Emily Rossum looking all cute when he brings her antibiotics. Or Dennis Quaid. Or... well, you get the idea. ;)
 
 
-2 # Malcolm 2014-02-26 01:19
Um, trollboy, why do you suppose the second link-you know, the one you said shows GLOBAL temperatures? Why is it labelled "US TEMPERATURES.

Seems to me you're being TOTALLY disingenuous, trollboy.

And that first one? Did you happen to notice all the years that were HOTTER than 1998? Yes? Good. Now, please also notice that, on the rigged graph, 1998 is the HOTTEST YEAR OF ALL.

It's a sham, trollboy. You can try all you want to pretend it's not, but in your heart of hearts you KNOW. YOU KNOW, TROLLBOY!

And, to save you from embarrassing yourself EVEN MORE, be sure to notice that thes graphs each come from Giss.nasa.g ov. NOT from a skeptic website.

Do you get it yet, trollboy?
|
 
 
-1 # Billy Bob 2014-02-26 10:51
I responded to you above. No need to repeat yourself, Malcolm.

Again, could anyone explain how graphs work to Malcolm?
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2014-02-26 10:52
Malcolm,

One thing that tells me I'm doing the right thing (by pointing out what an obviously dishonest and full of shit troll you are), is the fact that you started out by attacking this entire thread and wasting the time of people who are smart enough to take this issue seriously.

Since I called you out for your behavior, you've focused all of your attention on trying to get revenge on me. You're obsessed with me, even more than your are with trolling comment threads about global warming.

This pleases me, because it's a taste of your own medicine. Your mission is to cloud the debate, and you can't effectively do that, because you're too obsessed with dealing with me personally.

It's difficult for you to tell convincing lies with so many people calling you out on it immediately. Perhaps you have a lot of time on your hands. Maybe you're lonely. Maybe you're just angry with the entire world and lashing out at liberals, because you're still bitter about the cultural revolution of the '60s.

WHO KNOWS?

It doesn't really matter what motivates you to troll around here (and, calling me a "troll" doesn't really cut it, since I'm not the one with 109 negative votes for my first comment, who still felt the need to come back and irritate everyone).

As much of a time killer as it was to try to keep up with your endless bizaare and bullshit comments, the pay off is that NO ONE bought what you were trying to sell.

You can have the last word.

:-)
 
 
-1 # Malcolm 2014-02-26 11:19
From: Tom Wigley [...]
To: Phil Jones [...]
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer [...]
Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that theland also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips—higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.
 
 
-1 # Malcolm 2014-02-26 11:20
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH—just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note – from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not)—but not really enough.
So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.
Tom.

I love the name "MAGICC". Apparently it MAGICCly changes normal climactic variability to terrifying Anthropogenic Global Warming.
 
 
0 # Dust 2014-02-26 11:25
The two graphs that have Malcom so upset are plots of temperature anomalies in the continental US. One is from 2000, the other is from 2012. The first thing to note is that these are plots of anomalies from a reference baseline, not actual temperatures. The second thing to note is that these are scaled graphs, meaning the anomalies are scaled to fall between roughly -1.5 and 1.5. Both scaling and the use of anomalies are standard statistical techniques for examining time-series data.

The first graph is from:

Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, J. Glascoe, and Mki. Sato, 1999: GISS analysis of surface temperature change. J. Geophys. Res., 104.

The second is just an updated version of the first, with modifications detialed and discussed in:

Hansen, J.E., R. Ruedy, M. Sato, M. Imhoff, W. Lawrence, D. Easterling, T. Peterson, and T. Karl, 2001: A closer look at United States and global surface temperature change. J. Geophys. Res., 106.

Both graphs use the base period 1951 - 1980.

-cont-
 
 
-1 # Malcolm 2014-02-26 11:40
Exactly! The thing you should look at is that both graphs are drawn by NASA. The first shows several years being warmer than 1998.

The second shows all those years being COOLER than 1998. That's the smoking gun.
 
 
-1 # Malcolm 2014-02-26 11:37
Can somebody explain why my post was deleted? Makes the remaining discussion confusing. I'll repost, and see if it gets pulled again:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
Map showing 1999 data, before revision

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.gif
Map showing revised temps

These are the elusive "smoking guns", one that PROVES the scammers at NASA, among other agencies FAKED the temperature records. Before the alterations, 1998 was the fourth or fifth warmest year this century (one of rather years was BARELY warmer, the others CLEARLY warmer.

After the sleight of hand, 1998 MAGICCLY became the warmest of them all.

Me?im only surprised these graphs are still online, and at NASA's websites, no less. You might want to copy and save these two graphs; at some point NASA may remove them from their websites.
 
 
-1 # Malcolm 2014-02-26 11:37
Hmm. All the pulled posts reappeared in the last five minutes. Musta been a simple computer glitch.
 
 
-1 # Dust 2014-02-26 11:37
Malcom is upset because the second graph has reduced the differential between 1921 and 1934 in contrast to 1998, making 1934 and 1998 virtually identical anomalies, whereas the first graph clearly shows 1934 as much warmer than 1998.

Firstly, when adding additional data that exceed previous anomaly ranges, the scale of the graphic will change, making earlier data points closer together. But although that explains some of this, it doesn't address Malcom's observation, which is totally valid.

There were two primary modifications to methods from the original graphic that resulted in the observed changes. They are discussed in detail in Hansen et al. 2001, with specific references to individual papers for method development.

1) Time-of-observa tion bias (all stations were not calculating 24-hour min/max/mean between midnight and midnight), station history corrections (changes in physical station location) (Easterling et al. 1996), and changes in instrumentation (shift from liquid-in-glass thermometers) (Quayle et al. 1991);

2) Reclassificatio n and compensation for urban heat-island effects and other light-derived influences (Imhoff et al. 1997);

-cont-
 
 
-1 # Dust 2014-02-26 11:46
Hansen et al. 2001 discusses the changes in analysis from implementation of these methods, and very specifically addresses the 1934 - 1998 relationship, noting that the difference in mean temperature is a few hundreths of a degree, and that until a difference in excess of 0.1 C is observed, it is not possible to declare any sort of record US temperature for either year (Hansen et al. 2001, page 8, paragraph 5).

The paper also notes much of what has already been posted above, in terms of US temperatures relative to global processes.

I would have thought that if Malcom were really so incensed about this, he would have bothered to read the papers and documentation accompanying the graphs. If he can't even make the effort to do that, it simply reinforces the idea that he has read no real science on climate change.

Although I am stretching here, I think Malcom is friends with or at least acquainted with Don Easterbrook. Don is a nice guy, and Malcom listens to him when he discusses climate and he trusts him. He then goes off maintaining and defending Don's ideas (thus his exhortation to observe the PDO) without having truly read anything, and thus fits his own description of following someone else's lead without thinking. That being said, anyone who participates in the Heartwood Institute's goals or methods or conduct has no call, in my opinion, to claim any sort of moral or scientific high ground.
 
 
0 # Malcolm 2014-02-26 13:36
Dust, I appreciate your reason- based (mostly-the somewhat libelous statements could be done without)

I have read at least some of NASA's explanations, or perhaps "excuses".

1. It's true that many records, especially older ones, did not average max and min. This is but ONE oF the reasons many skeptics don't put much stock in even the instrumental records. (Another is that, even recording thermography, which attempt to record temperatures 24/7, have margins of error much greater-often HUGELY GREATER-than the heating being forecast by the Warmists. I was personally responsible for I would estimate 100+ thermographs, when working for US Geological Survey and Siskiyou National Forest.

Some of these instruments simply functioned poorly, with errors up to around 15° over a one month time span. ALL of them shared a common problem which GUARANTEED inaccuracies on the order of 2-4°. This was due to the fact that they used paper strip charts (some older ones used large-12 to 15" diameter round paper charts, which were by far the worst).

Regardless, all paper charts expanded and contracted with changes in temperature and-especially- humidity.
 
 
0 # Malcolm 2014-02-26 13:52
Continued
I would visit each thermograph site about once per month, in order to compare their readings with those of mercury filled glass thermometers. I would note on the charts what the hand held thermometer readings were, and the thermographs' reading (both read at the same instant)

Back at the office, I followed standard practice: I "prorated" the error over the 30 day +/- period. That's the best thing we were able to do.

If the error were only a couple of degrees, our prorated data were the crème de la crème of temperature records (btw, all records back then were in degrees F). Obviously, though the data were only accurate to a margin of error of AT LEAST the amount of error that appeared between monthly visits.

The really inaccurate data should absolutely have been shitcanned! But the USGS uppity ups wouldn't hear of doing such a thing. They treated, and recorded and PUBLISHED even data with errors of 10-15°F as though it was "perfect".

Believe it or not, there's even more. These mercury thermometers, the gold standard for temperature measurement? To the best of my knowledge, nobody ever checked them for accuracy. It was assumed that they were perfect.
 
 
0 # Malcolm 2014-02-26 13:56
Continued

It wasn't until I became HFMIC of data collection at Siskiyou NF that it occurred to me to see how accurate these mercury thermometers were.

This was when I'd just received a shipment of a few dozen of them.

I put all of them in a water bath, kept mixed with a "magnetic stirring device", to assure there were no hot or cold spots in the water bath.

Turns out that about 90% of the thermometers had readings within 1/2° of each other. The others were only within 2° of the 90 percenters.

I won't even go iinto the inaccuracies caused by aspirated vs non aspirated weather stations, shading, ground surface radiation differences, etc. if you're interested, read some of the issues described by Anthony Watt, or by NOAA.

Suffice to say, any attempt to compare old temperature data with new is tenuous at best. (I don't have any data to confirm this, but I assume the newer digital equipment is better?)
 
 
0 # Malcolm 2014-02-26 14:05
To address your other issues (and my finger is getting pretty tired!)

1. and 2. Trying to correct for time of observation bias is possible, but there's so much interpretation needed that I'm suspicious. Why does this correction always favor AGW? Even more suspicious is that warmists' urban heat island corrections which should-obviousl y-adjust RECENT urban temperature readings in a DOWNWARD direction, do the opposite, again, always favoring AGW.

Dust, your insulting claim that I have not "made the effort" isn't worthy of comment, other than to say you shouldn't emulate trollboy. That's his kind of "science"

I owe, I owe, so off to work I go.

Have a wonderful day. Stay warm.
 
 
0 # Malcolm 2014-02-26 20:14
Um, dust, I'd have thought Heartwood Institute would be one institution you would PRAISE! What's your beef-those folks seem so loving, so benign, and so environmentally aware!

Really. I'm blown away a your malice!
 
 
0 # Malcolm 2014-02-26 23:05
.
 
 
0 # Marxian 2014-03-10 01:25
Instead of the stupid name calling and bickering, why don't readers just put half the effort into finding out just what the HAARP project is? Does any believe that a huge amount of funding and resources was expended to set up these antenna arrays around the world for nothing? Better to waste intellectual energy on silly bickering, I guess. This entire discussion proves that ignorance is bliss to some who like to waste space and time here.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN