Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
pogorocks

GLOBAL WARMING DENIERS NOW IN REALM OF FLAT EARTH BELIEVERS

Recommended Posts

Something that is becoming more and more obvious to the general public is the title of another new article analysing the denier cultists' reactions to the worldwide scientific calculation that 2014 is the new 'hottest year on record'.

 

GLOBAL WARMING DENIERS NOW IN REALM OF FLAT EARTH BELIEVERS

January 17, 2015

Those who do not believe the earth is getting significantly warmer, or climate changing as some prefer to call it, have few places left to go with that belief.

 

Scientists reported Friday that the year 2014 was the hottest in earths recorded history, seriously undermining the claims of those who either believe global warming is simply untrue or that global warming had somehow stopped.

 

The globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for 2014 was the highest among all years since record keeping began in 1880 and the December combined global land and ocean average surface temperature was also the highest on record, according to the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration's Climate Data Center.

 

The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1997. Most scientists believe this trend is a direct consequence of human caused emissions (green house gasses) into earth's atmosphere which they believe portends long-term and grave risks to civilization and all things in our natural world.

 

Around the planet wildfires are getting hotter, more frequent and more dangerous. The wildfire seasons themselves are longer and hurricanes and other such storms are growing more destructive.

 

Some scientists observed that the most remarkable thing about the 2014 record was that it occurred in a year that did not feature El Niño -- the large-scale weather pattern in which the ocean pumps an enormous amount of heat into the atmosphere.

 

Claims by climate-change skeptics that global warming has stopped look to a particular starting year, 1998, when an unusually powerful El Niño produced the hottest year of the 20th century.

 

But with the continued heating of the earth's atmosphere and the surface of the ocean, 1998 is now being surpassed every four or five years, with 2014 being the first time that has happened in a year featuring no real El Niño pattern.

 

One scientist, Gavin A. Schmidt, head of NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan says the next time a strong El Niño comes our way it is likely to eclipse all temperature records.

 

He also said the reason the earth keeps getting so many record-warm years is because the planet in a long term trend and that trend is not going away.

 

The full analysis can be found here .

 

Some highlights from the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration's report on 2014:

 

During 2014, the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.24°F (0.69°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest among all 135 years in the 18802014 record, surpassing the previous records of 2005 and 2010 by 0.07°F (0.04°C).

 

Record warmth was spread around the world, including Far East Russia into western Alaska, the western United States, parts of interior South America, most of Europe stretching into northern Africa, parts of eastern and western coastal Australia, much of the northeastern Pacific around the Gulf of Alaska, the central to western equatorial Pacific, large swaths of northwestern and southeastern Atlantic, most of the Norwegian Sea, and parts of the central to southern Indian Ocean.

 

During 2014, the globally-averaged land surface temperature was 1.80°F (1.00°C) above the 20th century average. This was the fourth highest among all years in the 18802014 record.

 

During 2014, the globally-averaged sea surface temperature was 1.03°F (0.57°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest among all years in the 18802014 record, surpassing the previous records of 1998 and 2003 by 0.09°F (0.05°C).

 

Looking above Earth's surface at certain layers of the atmosphere, two different analyses examined NOAA satellite-based data records for the lower and middle troposphere and the lower stratosphere.

 

The 2014 temperature for the lower troposphere (roughly the lowest five miles of the atmosphere) was third highest in the 1979-2014 record, at 0.50°F (0.28°C) above the 19812010 average, as analyzed by the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH), and sixth highest on record, at 0.29°F (0.16°C) above the 19812010 average, as analyzed by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS).

 

The 2014 temperature for the mid-troposphere (roughly two miles to six miles above the surface) was third highest in the 19792014 record, at 0.32°F (0.18°C) above the 19812010 average, as analyzed by UAH, and sixth highest on record, at 0.25°F (0.14°C) above the 19812010 average, as analyzed by RSS.

 

The temperature for the lower stratosphere (roughly 10 miles to 13 miles above the surface) was 13th lowest in the 19792014 record, at 0.56°F (0.31°C) below the 19812010 average, as analyzed by UAH, and also 13th lowest on record, at 0.41°F (0.23°C) below the 19812010 average, as analyzed by RSS. The stratospheric temperature is decreasing on average while the lower and middle troposphere temperatures are increasing on average, consistent with expectations in a greenhouse-warmed world.

 

According to data from NOAA analyzed by the Rutgers Global Snow Lab, the average annual Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent during 2014 was 24.95 million square miles, and near the middle of the historical record. The first half of 2014 saw generally below-normal snow cover extent, with above-average coverage later in the year.

 

Recent polar sea ice extent trends continued in 2014. The average annual sea ice extent in the Arctic was 10.99 million square miles, the sixth smallest annual value of the 36-year period of record. The annual Antarctic sea ice extent was record large for the second consecutive year, at 13.08 million square miles.

 

GLOBAL HIGHLIGHTS FROM DECEMBER 2014

 

During December, the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.39°F (0.77°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest for December in the 18802014 record, surpassing the previous record of 2006 by 0.04°F (0.02°C).

 

During December, the globally-averaged land surface temperature was 2.45°F (1.36°C) above the 20th century average. This was the third highest for December in the 18802014 record.

 

During December, the globally-averaged sea surface temperature was 0.99°F (0.55°C) above the 20th century average. This was also the third highest for December in the 18802014 record.

 

The average Arctic sea ice extent for December was 210,000 square miles (4.1 percent) below the 19812010 average. This was the ninth smallest December extent since records began in 1979, according to analysis by the National Snow and Ice Data Center based on data from NOAA and NASA.

 

Antarctic sea ice during December was 430,000 square miles (9.9 percent) above the 19812010 average. This was the fourth largest December Antarctic sea ice extent on record.

 

According to data from NOAA analyzed by the Rutgers Global Snow Lab, the Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent during December was 130,000 square miles below the 1981-2010. This was the 20th smallest December Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent in the 49-year period of record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feel free to produce a model that attributes it to human activity. You kids tried CO2 concentrations, that didn't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feel free to produce a model that attributes it to human activity. You kids tried CO2 concentrations, that didn't work.

All of the current scientific models attribute the current abrupt warming trend to the 43% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels that mankind's activities has produced. Your idiotic and unfounded denier cult myth that these models of the Earth's climate that show the effect of rising CO2 levels on temperatures "didn't work" amounts to just more of your general denial of science and reality.

 

Temperature change and carbon dioxide change

NOAA Paleoclimatology

One of the most remarkable aspects of the paleoclimate record is the strong correspondence between temperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere observed during the glacial cycles of the past several hundred thousand years. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes up, temperature goes up. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes down, temperature goes down. A small part of the correspondence is due to the relationship between temperature and the solubility of carbon dioxide in the surface ocean, but the majority of the correspondence is consistent with a feedback between carbon dioxide and climate. These changes are expected if the Earth is in radiative balance, and are consistent with the role of greenhouse gases in climate change. While it might seem simple to determine cause and effect between carbon dioxide and climate from which change occurs first, or from some other means, the determination of cause and effect remains exceedingly difficult. Furthermore, other changes are involved in the glacial climate, including altered vegetation, land surface characteristics, and ice-sheet extent.

 

temperature-change.jpg

Temperature change (blue) and carbon dioxide change (red) observed in ice core records Many other records are available

 

Taking these different influences into account, it is possible to determine how much the temperature decreased when carbon dioxide was reduced, and use this scaling (termed climate sensitivity) to determine how much temperature might increase as carbon dioxide increases. An estimate from the tropical ocean, far from the influence of ice sheets, indicates that the tropical ocean may warm 5°C for a doubling of carbon dioxide. The paleo data provide a valuable independent check on the sensitivity of climate models, and the 5°C value is consistent with many of the current coupled climate models.

 

Other paleo proxies help us understand the role of the oceans in past and future climate change. The ocean contains 60 times more carbon than the atmosphere, and as expected, the changes in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were paralleled by changes in carbon in the ocean over the past several hundred thousand years. While the ocean changes much more slowly than the atmosphere, the ocean played an essential role in past variations in carbon dioxide, and will also play a role in the future over thousands of years.

 

Finally, the paleo data reveal that climate change is not just about temperature. As carbon dioxide has changed in the past, many other aspects of climate changed too. During glacial times, snow-lines were lower, continents were drier, and the tropical monsoons were weaker. Some of these changes may be independent, others tightly coupled to the changing level of carbon dioxide. Understanding which of these changes might occur in the future, and how large those changes might be, remains a topic of vigorous research. The Paleoclimatology Program exists to help scientists document these changes that have occurred in the past as one approach to understanding future climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHY is NASA giving us information about Global Warmig ANYWAY? Was THIS part of Obama's RE-scoping of NASA in 2010? Is this the SAME NASA that JUST recently encouraged WORLD SOCIALISM as a way to combat the impending IMPLOSION of the western WORLD that they predicted?... NO JOKE...

 

I wouldn't believe ANYTHING that NASA or NOAA put out on global warming, as far as I could THROW the Brooklin Bridge... because they MARCH to Barak Obama's drummer, and HE and ALL Democrats are being motivated by the BIG money from guys like BILLIONAIRE Tom Steyer, and others... AND they have PROVEN thmselves to be LIARS already, when they modified data in 2008 thast they THOUGHT dodn't "support" their position, and were CAUGHT as part of the CLIMATEGATE fiaso...

 

ONCE a LIAR, ALWAYS a LIAR !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Antarctic sea ice during December was 430,000 square miles (9.9 percent) above the 19812010 average. This was the fourth largest December Antarctic sea ice extent on record.

 

Cry me an ice cube?

 

KJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHY is NASA giving us information about Global Warmig ANYWAY? Was THIS part of Obama's RE-scoping of NASA in 2010? Is this the SAME NASA that JUST recently encouraged WORLD SOCIALISM as a way to combat the impending IMPLOSION of the western WORLD that they predicted?... NO JOKE... I wouldn't believe ANYTHING that NASA or NOAA put out on global warming, as far as I could THROW the Brooklin Bridge... because they MARCH to Barak Obama's drummer, and HE and ALL Democrats are being motivated by the BIG money from guys like BILLIONAIRE Tom Steyer, and others... AND they have PROVEN thmselves to be LIARS already, when they modified data in 2008 thast they THOUGHT dodn't "support" their position, and were CAUGHT as part of the CLIMATEGATE fiaso...ONCE a LIAR, ALWAYS a LIAR !!

LOLOLOL......just the usual extremely insane drivel and crackpot conspiracy theories from ol' InsaneSam....."socialism"!!!....booga-booga.....LOLOLOLOL......sooooooo retarded......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOLOLOL......just the usual extremely insane drivel and crackpot conspiracy theories from ol' InsaneSam....."socialism"!!!....booga-booga.....LOLOLOLOL......sooooooo retarded......

Poor thing. You are typing this with tears in your eyes and really nobody from our high- flying President on down care. It's more of a hobby now among warmists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Antarctic sea ice during December was 430,000 square miles (9.9 percent) above the 19812010 average. This was the fourth largest December Antarctic sea ice extent on record.

 

Cry me an ice cube?

Oh JerkOff, are you still so confused that you can't comprehend the difference between the fringe of thin sea ice that forms every winter around the continent of Antarctica and melts away almost entirely every summer, and the ENORMOUSLY greater permanent ice sheets and ice shelves resting on or tied to the land mass? That fringe of seasonal sea ice has gotten slightly larger in recent years (in the winter, vanishing in the summer) but the slight temporary gain in ice mass is dwarfed by the ongoing continuous ice mass loss from the permanent ice that is resting on the continent of Antarctica. It is also dwarfed by the much greater loss of the formerly permanent Arctic sea ice cap, that has now diminished in both extent and volume to only a fraction of what it was before 1950.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we 'll see how much time, if any, is given to global climate change--a humangus everyone panic emergency--vs. say, tax cuts and other short term emergencies in tomorrow's State of the Union Address. Should be fun !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we 'll see how much time, if any, is given to global climate change--a humangus everyone panic emergency--vs. say, tax cuts and other short term emergencies in tomorrow's State of the Union Address. Should be fun !

President Obama's speech should be interesting.......probably more points on AGW than you expect, JayDumb......but nothing political has any real bearing on the scientific evidence or the conclusions of the experts, the climate scientists, supporting the reality and dangers of anthropogenic global warming and its consequent climate changes. That's the reality you try to deny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to data from NOAA analyzed by the Rutgers Global Snow Lab, the average annual Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent during 2014 was 24.95 million square miles, and near the middle of the historical record. The first half of 2014 saw generally below-normal snow cover extent, with above-average coverage later in the year.

 

Cry me a piece of milk toast?

 

According to data from NOAA analyzed by the Rutgers Global Snow Lab, the Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent during December was 130,000 square miles below the 1981-2010. This was the 20th smallest December Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent in the 49-year period of record.

 

Confused?

 

I don't see how.

 

KJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to data from NOAA analyzed by the Rutgers Global Snow Lab, the average annual Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent during 2014 was 24.95 million square miles, and near the middle of the historical record. The first half of 2014 saw generally below-normal snow cover extent, with above-average coverage later in the year.

 

Cry me a piece of milk toast?

 

According to data from NOAA analyzed by the Rutgers Global Snow Lab, the Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent during December was 130,000 square miles below the 1981-2010. This was the 20th smallest December Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent in the 49-year period of record.

 

Confused?

 

I don't see how.

ROTFLMAO.....yeah, I guess it takes a real genius to notice that one paragraph is talking about "snow cover extent during 2014" and the other one is talking about "snow cover extent during December".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

President Obama's speech should be interesting.......probably more points on AGW than you expect, JayDumb......but nothing political has any real bearing on the scientific evidence or the conclusions of the experts, the climate scientists, supporting the reality and dangers of anthropogenic global warming and its consequent climate changes. That's the reality you try to deny.

.

 

I'll time the amount of time he spends on global warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope cant believe the lies of al gore

Nobody really cares what braindead retards like you believe or don't believe, Zombiebrains. The scientific reality of AGW is indifferent to your mental floundering and moronic confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many threads has pg started now ... all with the same basic conclusion? Talk about a flat earther. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many threads has pg started now ... all with the same basic conclusion?

LOLOLOLOL.......you're such a kook, BeALoser....you mean the "basic conclusion" that the world's climate scientists, who are THE experts in this area of science, and who are in almost complete unanimity on the reality and extreme dangers of anthropogenic global warming and the climate changes it is causing, are right about our situation, as all of the obvious evidence all around us also affirms? Or the conclusion that you denier cult nutjobs are complete wackos for falling for the crackpot conspiracy theories that claim that there is an enormous world-wide conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of scientists in a hundred countries or so who have all secretly agreed to "fudge" their data and "hoax" the public for reasons that seem clear only to you denier cult imbeciles? Or is it the conclusion that you are a lying troll, pushing debunked fossil fuel industry propaganda memes until your teeth hurt?

 

 

 

 

 

Talk about a flat earther.

LOLOLOL......yeah...riiiight.....anyone who accepts the testimony of the world's premier scientists, like the ones at NASA and NOAA and the NSIDC and UCAR and PIOMAS and many others in many countries, on the most important scientific issue of our times, just MUST be a "flat earther" in ol' BeALoser's twisted Bizarro-world.....while the character who denies the scientifically affirmed reality in favor of crackpot conspiracy theories and fraudulent pseudo-science isn't in any way similar to the NASA hating Flat-Earth Society....LOLOLOL....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And more people notice the obvious....

 

Global Warming Deniers Are New Flat Earth Society

Global Warming Deniers' Short-Sighted Belief System Endangers Us All

By Chrysler Summer

October 09, 2014

I always get a kick out of people who argue with science, with facts. One of the most interesting examples of this are those who choose to deny the undeniable evidence that global warming is indeed a reality. Listening to them is probably what it was like listening to those who argued the earth was flat. But one difference now is that statistics and science, even common observation, make it easy to see the reality of climate change.

 

Global warming is simple. It is the rising average temperature of the earths climate system. And you would think it is easy to prove and measure. And it actually is. According to one report, Since the early 20th century, the global air and sea surface temperature has increased about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F), with about two-thirds of the increase occurring since 1980. Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth's surface than any preceding decade since 1850.

 

The truth of it has been documented by many scientists from many different disciplines. But why the debate then? The arguments and the denial of the truth are based on what science and observation indicate will happen because of global warming.

 

The effects will vary but some of the changes due to global warming, some of which have already been seen, are increased heat waves, coastal erosion, rising sea levels, more erratic rainfall and droughts. It is even predicted that the range of diseases and insect pests that are normally limited by temperature could expand.

 

Like everything else though, from published facts about the dangers of tobacco and the push for warning labels on cigarettes, big business and their political supporters, generally the Republicans, see all this as a liberal movement that will damage big business. The whole matter of laws impacting the emission of greenhouse gases, which are a big factor in global warming, are the root of the debate for many. Climate change deniers see all this as a smokescreen, something orchestrated by liberals and scientists all over the world and from many different and competing disciplines, to put big governments foot on the throat of big business and the free market. These are the same people I suppose who believe businesses and corporations should be free to do whatever businesses want to do, the environment be damned. Science being just a nuisance, unless of course it can be used to support their pillaging of the earths resources and destruction of our very world if left unchecked.

 

Global warming deniers are nothing more than those who see a conspiracy to stop unlimited freedom to do whatever. But arguing with liberals and politicians is one thing. Denying the volumes of facts that are out there on global warming and climate change is lunacy. I like the interview I saw with astro-physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson who said this about the deniers:

 

I dont see people trying to repeal the Law of Gravity just because they are gaining weight. I didnt see people trying to repeal e=mc squared simply because it conflicted with their political philosophy. These (global warming facts) are emerging scientific truths. So Im disappointed when I look around and see people cherry-picking the consensus of observation and experimentation that has emerged in science.

I call it selective ignorance. People choosing to ignore facts and logic when it butts up against what they prefer to see as truth. Most people dont want truth. They want support for their lifestyle and current ways of thinking. Nothing proves this more than the global warming debate. How we are debating something as obvious as this is beyond me. But then again, there is a part of me that believes most of the political deniers know the truth, but choose the large amount of money they get from big businesses over voicing or acknowledging the true problem. The money they make now inadvertently adding to the damage to the earth is just not a concern. So they can see the evidence but somehow look right past it. And that kind of thinking and selective vision is what will keep us on this path towards the destruction they deny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just bought my hybrid.

VW has a standard diesel that gets over 100 mpg; but you'll never see it sold here. Also a diesel hybrid ( two seater - with gull wings ) that gets over 250 mpg; and again, you'll never see it sold here. Where TF is Gore? Volkswagen's New 300 MPG Car Not Allowed In America ...

Though the XL1 can be plugged in to deliver a 40 mile all electric drive, it does not need to be plugged in EVER to achieve 300 mpg. And it does not cheat in any way to achieve the rating, it weighs over 1,700 pounds, has normal tires, and delivers a very good driving experience with a governed top speed of 99 mph.

 

The XL1 could reach a top speed in excess of 110 mph absent governor and turns in a 0-60 time of 11.5 seconds which is by no means leisurly for a car designed for efficiency. The XL1 in no way cheats on performance to hit it's rating. It is simply the car we should have always had, and have had taken from us in the name of oil profits.

 

Though the XL1 can hit 300 mpg under ideal driving conditions, it's combined mileage is usually a little over 200 mpg, and if you do city driving only that will drop to a minimum of 180 mpg under the worst driving conditions. But I'd be happy with that no doubt.

  • I knew 40 years ago - diesel was it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×