"global warming petition project" peer reviewed and everything???
- Thread starter tobinates559
- Start date
Where does the money come from?
You aren't really this naive, you're just pretending.
No way dude, man evolved, one day he went from a Lemur and then one day the females all gave birth to human beings instead of lemurs, no transition, just BAM! Human.
What's a missing link?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
That's not how science works
This is a perfect example
A, B, C are transitions in one species
Say we find a transition from A to B, a
Now it's A, a, B, C
Now we find one from B to C
..A, a, B, b, C
..now from A to a > A, Aa, a, B, b, C...
And on and on and on for forever. We find one transition, it creates two new holes for people who don't understand science to claim there is a "missing link" between the already established related species.
There is no missing link, only to people who can't tell me what they would accept as an undeniable source of proof they would accept as a missing link. 3rd time I've asked, crickets. None of them can answer it because none of them will accept anything as proof. There is no proofto them, only lies from the left and the same big government they want to keep homosexuals from getting married and doing what they want with their own bodies and beliefs..
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Pinworm
Well-Known Member
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
A deep freeze has settled in over the Great Lakes this winter and a new image released by NASA shows the astonishing extent of the ice cover as seen from space.
NASA's Aqua satellite captured this image of the lakes on the early afternoon of Feb. 19, 2014. At the time, 80.3 percent of the five lakes were covered in ice, according to the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL), part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Earlier this month, ice cover over the Great Lakes hit 88 percent for the first time since 1994. Typically at its peak, the average ice cover is just over 50 percent, and it only occasionally passes 80 percent, according to NASA's Earth http://www.livescience.com/43569-ice-covered-great-lakes-photo.html
That pesky old global warming is at it again.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
So more extreme weather patterns, exactly as predicted by climate scientists over 2 decades ago, isn't a sign of the effects of climate change? Because it got cold?
Do you know the difference between "weather" and "climate"?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
that's probably because the last 19 years have contained over a dozen of the hottest years on record.
"That pesky old global warming is at it again."
Pinworm
Well-Known Member
the earf is melting.....why come, guys? If I was rich, I'd know that this is just another issue to be argued about. I hate most of you.
That's not how science works
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
Actual increase in last 17 years lower than almost every prediction
The 17-year pause in global warming is likely to last into the 2030s and the Arctic sea ice has already started to recover, according to new research.
A paper in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics – by Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and Dr Marcia Wyatt – amounts to a stunning challenge to climate science orthodoxy.
Not only does it explain the unexpected pause, it suggests that the scientific majority – whose views are represented by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – have underestimated the role of natural cycles and exaggerated that of greenhouse gases.
The research comes amid mounting evidence that the computer models on which the IPCC based the gloomy forecasts of a rapidly warming planet in its latest report, published in September, are diverging widely from reality.
The graph shown above, based on a version published by Dr Ed Hawkins of Reading University on his blog, Climate Lab Book, reveals that actual temperatures are now below the predictions made by almost all the 138 models on which the IPCC relies.
Pinworm
Well-Known Member
Actual increase in last 17 years lower than almost every prediction
The 17-year pause in global warming is likely to last into the 2030s and the Arctic sea ice has already started to recover, according to new research.
A paper in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics – by Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and Dr Marcia Wyatt – amounts to a stunning challenge to climate science orthodoxy.
Not only does it explain the unexpected pause, it suggests that the scientific majority – whose views are represented by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – have underestimated the role of natural cycles and exaggerated that of greenhouse gases.
The research comes amid mounting evidence that the computer models on which the IPCC based the gloomy forecasts of a rapidly warming planet in its latest report, published in September, are diverging widely from reality.
The graph shown above, based on a version published by Dr Ed Hawkins of Reading University on his blog, Climate Lab Book, reveals that actual temperatures are now below the predictions made by almost all the 138 models on which the IPCC relies.
Yea. Global warming....it's really real.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
In a statement issued on 5 February, the NSIDC said: “Preliminary measurements from the CryoSat show that the volume of Arctic sea ice in autumn 2013 was about 50% higher than in the autumn of 2012. In October 2013, CryoSat measured approximately 9,000 cubic kilometers (approximately 2,200 cubic miles) of sea ice compared to 6,000 cubic kilometers (approximately 1,400 cubic miles) in October 2012.”
http://www.reportingclimatescience....ta-shows-arctic-ice-volume-has-increased.html
It's something of a double edged sword, isn't it?
The area decreases but the volume increases. The dynamics from this must be more than negligible.
I guess the real questions will arise post-summer when the melt can be monitored to see if there really is a 'slowdown' or reversal of trend.
And what's strange is this is happening during a (weak) solar maximum period. If the solar cycles don't start flaring up, this shit is going to get colder and colder over the next few decades.
However, it is possible I give old Sol too much credit, after all, the IPCC thinks TSI has 'negligible' effect
http://www.reportingclimatescience....ta-shows-arctic-ice-volume-has-increased.html
It's something of a double edged sword, isn't it?
The area decreases but the volume increases. The dynamics from this must be more than negligible.
I guess the real questions will arise post-summer when the melt can be monitored to see if there really is a 'slowdown' or reversal of trend.
And what's strange is this is happening during a (weak) solar maximum period. If the solar cycles don't start flaring up, this shit is going to get colder and colder over the next few decades.
However, it is possible I give old Sol too much credit, after all, the IPCC thinks TSI has 'negligible' effect
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
As we can all see by the graph that proves just about every scientific computer model was wrong, way wrong.
All the hype and all the hysteria, but the reality is, 17 years of no global warming.
I will celebrate by hugging a polar bear.
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
In a statement issued on 5 February, the NSIDC said: “Preliminary measurements from the CryoSat show that the volume of Arctic sea ice in autumn 2013 was about 50% higher than in the autumn of 2012. In October 2013, CryoSat measured approximately 9,000 cubic kilometers (approximately 2,200 cubic miles) of sea ice compared to 6,000 cubic kilometers (approximately 1,400 cubic miles) in October 2012.”
View attachment 3002889
http://www.reportingclimatescience....ta-shows-arctic-ice-volume-has-increased.html
It's something of a double edged sword, isn't it?
The area decreases but the volume increases. The dynamics from this must be more than negligible.
I guess the real questions will arise post-summer when the melt can be monitored to see if there really is a 'slowdown' or reversal of trend.
And what's strange is this is happening during a (weak) solar maximum period. If the solar cycles don't start flaring up, this shit is going to get colder and colder over the next few decades.
However, it is possible I give old Sol too much credit, after all, the IPCC thinks TSI has 'negligible' effect
So you would have to ask, what is wrong in saying, we just don't know as yet?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
10 warmest years on record
[TABLE="class: wikitable sortable jquery-tablesorter"]
[TR]
[TH="class: headerSort"]Year
[/TH]
[TH="class: headerSort"]Global[SUP][66][/SUP][/TH]
[TH="class: headerSort"]Land[SUP][67][/SUP][/TH]
[TH="class: headerSort"]Ocean[SUP][68][/SUP][/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2010
[/TD]
[TD]0.6590[/TD]
[TD]1.0748[/TD]
[TD]0.5027[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2005
[/TD]
[TD]0.6523[/TD]
[TD]1.0505[/TD]
[TD]0.5007[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1998
[/TD]
[TD]0.6325[/TD]
[TD]0.9351[/TD]
[TD]0.5160[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2003
[/TD]
[TD]0.6219[/TD]
[TD]0.8859[/TD]
[TD]0.5207[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2002
[/TD]
[TD]0.6130[/TD]
[TD]0.9351[/TD]
[TD]0.4902[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2006
[/TD]
[TD]0.5978[/TD]
[TD]0.9091[/TD]
[TD]0.4792[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2009
[/TD]
[TD]0.5957[/TD]
[TD]0.8621[/TD]
[TD]0.4953[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2007
[/TD]
[TD]0.5914[/TD]
[TD]1.0886[/TD]
[TD]0.3900[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2004
[/TD]
[TD]0.5779[/TD]
[TD]0.8132[/TD]
[TD]0.4885[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2012
[/TD]
[TD]0.5728[/TD]
[TD]0.8968[/TD]
[TD]0.4509[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Similar threads
