More Monday Amusement....

[Cancel 2016.2]

According to global warming theory, carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are trapping heat in the upper atmosphere, inexorably warming the planet.

The theory ignored inconvenient facts:

• In the Medieval Warm Period (950-1250 AD), and the Roman Warm Period (250 BC-400 AD), there were no automobiles or factories, but temperatures were warmer than now.

• In geologic history, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were much higher, but temperatures often were lower. In the Late Ordovician Period, CO2 concentrations were 12 times higher than they are today. The Late Ordovician Period was an ice age.

• Vostok (Antarctica) ice core samples indicate temperature changes have preceded changes in CO2 concentrations by an average of 800 years. This couldn't happen if CO2 caused temperature changes.

• CO2 in the atmosphere has increased since 1998, but temperatures haven't.

Now a peer-reviewed study of NASA satellite data indicates the computer models warmists rely upon grossly exaggerate the amount of heat being trapped in the atmosphere.

 

[zappasguitar]

According to global warming theory, carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are trapping heat in the upper atmosphere, inexorably warming the planet.

The theory ignored inconvenient facts:

• In the Medieval Warm Period (950-1250 AD), and the Roman Warm Period (250 BC-400 AD), there were no automobiles or factories, but temperatures were warmer than now.

• In geologic history, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were much higher, but temperatures often were lower. In the Late Ordovician Period, CO2 concentrations were 12 times higher than they are today. The Late Ordovician Period was an ice age.

• Vostok (Antarctica) ice core samples indicate temperature changes have preceded changes in CO2 concentrations by an average of 800 years. This couldn't happen if CO2 caused temperature changes.

• CO2 in the atmosphere has increased since 1998, but temperatures haven't.

Now a peer-reviewed study of NASA satellite data indicates the computer models warmists rely upon grossly exaggerate the amount of heat being trapped in the atmosphere.

Mind telling everyone where you got those supposed "facts"? A link would be nice...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Mind telling everyone where you got those supposed "facts"? A link would be nice...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/08/22/al_gore_goes_on_a_tirade_111039.html

Sorry, forgot the link that I quoted.... good catch....

Now... do go on attacking the source....

 

[Alias]

Al Gore has gone to the dark side. Even his wife left him.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/08/22/al_gore_goes_on_a_tirade_111039.html

Sorry, forgot the link that I quoted.... good catch....

Now... do go on attacking the source....

here is the PEER REVIEWED study of the NASA data....

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

 

[Damocles]

Sweet pwnage, SF...

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Nice, but the tidbit about Vostok is kinda irrelevent. Ice core samples have recently been found to be pretty worthless.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Nice, but the tidbit about Vostok is kinda irrelevent. Ice core samples have recently been found to be pretty worthless.

Never said it was a perfect article.... the main point was watching Gore implode as his fantasy of making billions trading carbon is dissipating faster than heat in the upper atmosphere

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Never said it was a perfect article.... the main point was watching Gore implode as his fantasy of making billions trading carbon is dissipating faster than heat in the upper atmosphere

Noted, just clarifying a bit.

 

[Rune]

NOAA seems to disagree with your source, http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html

and here; http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

as well as NASA http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2010-warmest-year.html

and here; http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+Reports+2010+to+be+the+Warmest+Year+on+Record/article20660.htm

Nice try, but oops, the facts disagree.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

NOAA seems to disagree with your source, http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html

How does that disagree? It states 2010 was tied with 2005 which is statistically the same as 1998.... hence NO statistically significant warming since 1998

and here; http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

Nope... that doesn't disagree with it either....

as well as NASA http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2010-warmest-year.html

Strike three... you should be out, but I am feeling kind today and will look at your fourth....

and here; http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+Reports+2010+to+be+the+Warmest+Year+on+Record/article20660.htm

Nice try, but oops, the facts disagree.

Ok... now you're out. Posting three links to the same '2010 tied 2005' story all using the same data? lol....

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

dune --> <-- SF

 

[Mr. T]

Al Gore has gone to the dark side. Even his wife left him.

She was tired of putting on the storm trooper outfit while trying to stimulate him.

 

[Rune]

How does that disagree? It states 2010 was tied with 2005 which is statistically the same as 1998.... hence NO statistically significant warming since 1998



Nope... that doesn't disagree with it either....



Strike three... you should be out, but I am feeling kind today and will look at your fourth....



Ok... now you're out. Posting three links to the same '2010 tied 2005' story all using the same data? lol....

Hmm, tha't funny, because I read the whole thing and it never mentioned 2005 or 2010 being tied with 1998.

I did find this snippet, though which also contradicts your interpretation;
In the contiguous United States, 2010 was the 14th consecutive year with an annual temperature above the long-term average. Since 1895, the temperature across the nation has increased at an average rate of approximately 0.12 F per decade.

So, WTF are you talking about?

 

[Rune]

dune --> <-- SF

Yurtroll>

<SuperFreak​

​

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Dunetroll>

<Legionsockpuppet​

​

okay, but we didn't really need to know

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Hmm, tha't funny, because I read the whole thing and it never mentioned 2005 or 2010 being tied with 1998.

I did find this snippet, though which also contradicts your interpretation;
In the contiguous United States, 2010 was the 14th consecutive year with an annual temperature above the long-term average. Since 1895, the temperature across the nation has increased at an average rate of approximately 0.12 F per decade.

So, WTF are you talking about?

yeah... funny that you didn't.....

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

However, the error bar on the data implies that 2005 is practically in a dead heat with 1998, the warmest previous year.

As for the rest of your nonsense... that comment is talking about the past 118 years. The earth is quite a bit older than that.

 

[Rune]

yeah... funny that you didn't.....

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/



As for the rest of your nonsense... that comment is talking about the past 118 years. The earth is quite a bit older than that.

So you are saying a 118 year trend is meaningless? That is proof, that the earth is old?

 

[The Dude]

Al Gore is a pimp!!!!
Who's made more money with less than Al?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Hmm, tha't funny, because I read the whole thing and it never mentioned 2005 or 2010 being tied with 1998.

I did find this snippet, though which also contradicts your interpretation;
In the contiguous United States, 2010 was the 14th consecutive year with an annual temperature above the long-term average. Since 1895, the temperature across the nation has increased at an average rate of approximately 0.12 F per decade.

So, WTF are you talking about?

However, the error bar on the data implies that 2005 is practically in a dead heat with 1998, the warmest previous year.

dune fails again