Last winter had the second largest northern hemisphere snow extent on record, after 1978. The 2010 snow was of course due to global warming, while the 1978 event was due to global cooling.
The trend line is completely flat, indicating the subtle transition from global cooling to global warming – which is only perceptible by climate experts looking for attention and funding. (The survival of the planet depends on these people being continuously hysterical about something or other.)
The global warming story has lost traction and I think they should seriously consider restarting the global cooling scare – of course they can start by blaming global cooling on global warming. Regardless of whether the planet is warming or cooling, it is 100% for sure the fault of Republicans.
I’ll Buy global cooling! The last 2 winters have been colder than a witches………
Watch what you say about Pope Vicky! 😉
Don’t Tread on Me
Ask the goddess of the moon, she knows
Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, invoked the ancient jaguar goddess Ixchel in her opening statement to delegates gathered in Cancun, Mexico, noting that Ixchel was not only goddess of the moon, but also “the goddess of reason, creativity and weaving. May she inspire you—because today, you are gathered in Cancun to weave together the elements of a solid response to climate change, using both reason and creativity as your tools.”
It is not lightly that I have begun using the term “voodoo” science. While voodoo and Maya have nothing in common except a hemisphere, both are based upon factless superstition.
No it’s true, I pray to the moon goddess every day. Time to go sacrifice some more people so that the sun doesn’t explode next week!
They left out a distinct attribute to those representing a Lunar influence as they are controlled by emotions rather than logic and reasoning.
Christina needs to do a bit more studying of Mythology.
http://www.mayadiscovery.com/ing/history/pop-cosmology/pop3.htm Next head of the IPCC? I guess they should be worried about the sun?
She is a real beauty! I thought it was a photo of Hillary!
BTW you can buy your souvenirs for the IPCC Mexico conference, they are already cashing in on them online
I bought 2, one for the house and one for the car, they help channel emissions to the moon
It’s the soot from all those Chinese coal fired power plants causing both warming and cooling.
Blam! Kapow! Climate Scientists in Verbal Brawl
This was the dramatic scene at a Tesco superstoret after a roof collapsed under the weight of snow.
The building in Scunthorpe, north Lincolnshire, was full of shoppers when 30 square metres of the roof and front canopy buckled.
this happened all accross china last winter as well, to 1000’s of buildings.
but it’s getting warmer 😉
If global warming causes cooling, don’t panic. It have happened before.
I’m going to ask the Moon Goddess today if Cell phones on earth are effecting Jupiter’s stripes. We must act and stop using cell phones before it’s too late
While the nimrods in Cancun lie, folks in Europe die
At least 60 killed by cold snap across Europe
“Climate change” causes everything, and everything is bad. Well, almost everything. The hockey stick of funding for this crisis industry has been good, for them.
I think it is time we look at an even greater threat, global rotation. It certainly seems to cause dramatic changes in the temperature here, on a daily basis no less. And based on the clear and unambiguous trend here since late June, daylight will soon be extinct in the northern hemisphere.
I understand we have about until next June before the sun goes away completely. The actual date will depend on your latitude. Somewhere around 65 north it should be setting right about now as the tipping point is being reached and with each day the latitude affected will be lower and lower until all the Northern Hemisphere is dark 24 hours a day. I have about 4 months left at my place and I am in negotiations for some Lake front property in Dry Valley on Antarctica.
So whether we get global warming or global cooling we are still going to get plenty of snow. So, why worry?
From Nasa Earth observatory showing a picture of snowy Ireland:
Meteorologists at the UK Met Office explained that persistent high pressure over the North Atlantic has been stalling and deflecting the westerly ocean breezes that usually keep the weather mild. Instead, frigid Arctic air has descended upon much of northern Europe. The cooler northerly and easterly winds blowing across the North Sea have been picking up moisture and dumping it as snow and rain on land.
Schools and airports have been closed on several occasions, and roads were clogged with traffic and accidents on the islands and across Europe. Dozens of deaths have been reported from exposure to the cold and from accidents. Temperatures have been 5 to 10 degrees Celsius below average, and dropped as low as -33 C in Poland. More snow and ice is predicted for this weekend in Ireland.
BBC Northern Ireland (2010, December 3) Schools closed and travel disrupted in heavy snow. Accessed December 3, 2010.
BBC (2010, December 3) Europe’s deadly cold snap maintains grip. Accessed December 3, 2010.
UK Met Office (2010, November 30) Why is it so cold and snowy? Accessed December 3, 2010.
Irish Central (2010, December 3) Further heavy snowfall expected as big freeze continues in Ireland. Accessed December 3, 2010.
Visit the NASA for the active links to the articles with great winter pictures.
Signs that show man made global warming is still happening
But Australia is cold, because it’s part of the warming trend, didn’t you know?
Oh no, can I sue the MET office, I was going to have a beach holiday in the UK, but their 33million pound supercomputer that can predict into the future at least 50 – 100 years can’t even predict 1 month away
So what do I do with my swimwear and flight to London for the tropical holiday?
They making fun out of us, they think we’re all idiots to believe that prolonged drought is due to man-made warming, prolonged winter and rains is also due to man-made warming.
I got a counter-joke for them here, http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2010/12/weekend-fun-3-al-gore-cartoons.html
No global warming believers commented so far. They must be staying in out of the snow and cold. They don’t want to catch a case of the doubts.
Note that the Spring snow extent shows a definite downward trend.
increased temp means increased water vapour in the atmosphere. increased water vapour means increased rain [ flooding ] and increased snow in cold areas. global warming means just that and its effect is global, including worldwide extreme weather, be it hot. cold , wet or dry. just takes a little information to know whats happening
As Mark Twain said: Science is so wonderful it provides so much conjecture based on such a small amount of facts.
When you get a bit more information please share the fantasy!
amino, most people who accept global warming as very probable based on the evidence would not waste their time trying to debate uninformed skeptics. you cannot change a religion by reason. i am just bored at the moment. but do not ever think you are being ignored out of fear. you are being ignored because there is no point debating an ideologue.
amino, by the way cold and snow is weather, not climate. you need to know the difference
Regional long term ocean atmosphere weather patterns last from 40 to 80 years with an average of 60 years. Anything less is day to day weather variations.
When you learn what constitutes climate come on back and have a chat!!!
no deniers commented so far. maybe they have been washed away in the record flooding in the southern hemisphere. more water vapour comes from increased evaporation. what causes evaporation? basic physics says ”warming ”. what causes increased snow as is happening in the northern hemisphere?. answer! increased water vapour which comes from increased evaporation. what causes evaporation? basic physics says ”warming ”. put the two hemispheres together and i think that makes a globe? ha ha.
You think that record cold air carries more water vapour?
Well now Mr Brown, I’m going to disagree with your basic physics.
Try an experiment. Place one bucket of water in a room of say 22DegC
Place a 2nd bucket of water under direct sunlight of 20DegC
Which will evaporate faster? The one under direct sunlight.
You trying to convince us that an extra 0.7DegC of temperature causes much extra evaporation won’t wash.
Google the paper On the Recent Warming in the Murray Darling Basin by Natalie Lockart et al
In it you’ll find that an extra 1.5hrs of Total Sunshine Hours (TSSH) causes 5 times as much evaporation as an extra 2DegC of T.
So your claim, made due to the dubious warming of 0.7DegC, is shaky.
You may also try googling Pan Evaporation. Lots of figures and data there to put paid to your “basic phsyics” claim.
By the way, I don’t like that word denier. Use it again and I’ll make references to brown cows
increased temp creates more water vapour. as increased temp increases evaporation. what happens after evaporation depends on the regional temperatures. southern hemisphere is warmer than northern hemisphere that means more rain. northern hemisphere is colder. that means more snow during winter months. and that is exactly what is happening. climate is not weather by the way
What part of near record cold air and sea surface temperatures is it that you don’t understand?
i do not understand it, because the oceans and atmosphere are warming not cooling. increased evaporation would not be happening if it was cooling. you do not understands basic physics it seems?
Sea surface temperatures are far below normal.
whoever told you there was global cooling in 1978?
NCAR, CRU, GISS, NOAA
i think the only thing below normal is your lack of information. sea surface temp is warming. increased c02 and increased radiation in the atmosphere which is empirically measured by nasa, cannot lead to cooling. increased evaporation which is causing record flooding and snow fall cannot be a result of a cooling sea
It is a waste of time talking to people who can’t see with their own eyes
It is hard for them to see anything when they have their fingers in their ears yelling nyah, nyah, nyah all the time.
Ignorance is curable – stupid is chronic.
my eyes can see record flooding and snowfall. that can only come from increased water vapour in the atmosphere. and that can only come from increased evaporation. and evaporation is controlled by temp. so it is logical to assume it is warming. my own eyes however, are limited as i am not a climate scientist. the eyes of the climate scientists say its warming and provide substantial evidence in that regard. until you can offer evidence to the contrary i will accept what they say.
Sea surface temperatures are far below normal. Open up your eyes.
As you said, that is weather, not climate. YOu contradict yourself with each post.
You seem to miss a minor problem! The atmosphere can hold a certain amount of moisture depending on the temperature of the atmosphere! When a cold front meays a warm moist region the moisture leaves the atmosphere in the form of rain or snow. A low pressure system north of my place draws warm moist air out of the Gulf and when it meats clod air the moisture precipitates out of the atmosphere. The difference between warm and cold determines the extent of conditions. In a warming world the difference would be less because of increased GHGs in the atmosphere. In a cooling world the difference would be greater because the polar air would spread further south like it is doing now. There is not enough warmth being generated in the tropics to force the transition region far enough north to keep the temperate regions temperate.
It is all simple physics. There is no real increase of water vapor in the atmosphere it is only a shift in where it precipitates out due to global cooling. A warmer world would increase the extent of precipitation in the higher latitudes as the warmth moves further north and south!
by the way, what peer reviewed published science paper told you that sea and atmospheric temp were cooling? it is certainly the opposite to what nasa and the world met say
Are you as dim-witted as you pretend to be?
climate is not weather . but climate can influence weather. that is no contradiction. you are saying that weather is climate and point to cold snaps as evidence that the climate is not warming .. i am afraid it is you who is confused
steve goddard. once you resort to personal attack you lose the argument. a little more science from you please. just answer one question. if rain or snow is falling at record levels worldwide that must mean record water vapour in the atmosphere? that can only come from increased evaporation. and evaporation is controlled by temp. so how can temp be decreasing ?
Sea surface temperatures are far below normal. I showed you the map. I am sorry that you can’t comprehend it.
The only cure for CHIA is a Crainialanalectomy. It appears that David is afflicted with CHIA!
You really need to learn about weather and climate!
i am asking you your sources steve. that is logical and far from dimwitted. i am open to change. if you can convince me with peer reviewed published science that you are correct i will gladly change my mind and agree with you .
That is FUNNY!!!!
I send you a link to the Unisys SST anomaly map, and you ask me for my sources? ROFLMAO
Here ya go..
my understanding of weather and climate are just fine. can you inform me where i am wrong? your map is but one map of many steve. while there is natural variability and other forcing agents at play, the oceans long term trend is still warming
In California, the rain comes in the winter – when it is cold. Same in Texas. Tricky concept, eh?
That is one among many of your misunderstandings. The condition of the ocean regarding warming or cooling over a long term is not known but most likely it is cooling to go along with the general long term trends observer regionally all over the globe!
It must be true that Surrealclimate is offline!
mike , so it is funny to ask for a scientific basis for an opinion? funny to ask for credible sources? i think your sense of humour is limiting your knowledge on the subject .
This blog is titled “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts”
The expectation here is that you can read maps and raw data.
I got to be able to read!!!! You never told me that before! 😦
What is so funny is that there is plenty of real data and information that supports Stevens position and a lot of made up shit to support what you are carrying on about.
I wonder if you use Al Gore as your reputable source of knowledge.
steve, winter is seasonal temp not global. you do not know the difference between weather and climate. global temp is the total heat content of the entire earth. a cold winter does not mean the global temp is getting colder
You said it rains more when the temperature is higher. I showed you that isn’t true.
david Brown said….
“i am asking you your sources steve. that is logical and far from dimwitted. i am open to change. if you can convince me with peer reviewed published science that you are correct i will gladly change my mind and agree with you .”
I just provided you with peer reviewed literature which shows you don’t necessarily need higher Ts for higher evaporation.
You stated you would change your mind if PR paper was presented.
I expect a statement from you declaring that you have changed your mind.
”but most likely ” is not evidence. ice does not melt in a cooling sea. and nasa satelite images show land ice melting. coral does not bleach in the conditions you endorse. certain types of marine life do not decrease in the conditions you endorse. in other words scientists can use many other studies to confirm whether the seas are cooling or not . and the majority scientific view is that the seas are warming
what NASA satellite images?
You apparently are ignorant of the scientific method. You have advanced an hypothesis – it is up to YOU to prove it, not for anyone to prove you are wrong. If you cannot PROVE you are correct, you are wrong. So far, you have only displayed your ignorance – not any facts.
That was directed at Dave Brown’s comment.
baa humbug, your literature may have been peer reviewed [ ill take your word for it ] but did it pass peer review? i can show you 2800 pages in the ipcc report. all peer reviewed. all from published science journals. so the large weight of evidence disagrees with your views. one peer reviewed albeit possibly unpublished paper is not much of an argument
No you cannot. Over 90 instances in AR4 alone have already been documented to come from non-peer reviewed sources. You are blowing smoke out of your wind pipe (or nether regions).
Your numbers are a bit short. Donna at No consensus did a review and found many more but I do not recall the totals. Maybe someone else does. A group of volunteers went through AR4 reference by reference and came up with an astonishing number on non peer reviewed sources. I believe that WG3 was 40 some percent not!
I read about Donna’s project, and that is why I said “over 90”. I forgot what the exact count was, but I do remember it being at least that much!
So I was conservative. 😉
We all must live with our faults! 😉
Wrong. Many references and citations in the IPCC AR4 were from environmental activist organizations – Opinion papers in direct violation of the IPCC rules.
Here’s an extensive list of documents created or co-authored by the WWF and cited by the Nobel-winning IPCC AR4 report:
■Allianz and World Wildlife Fund, 2006: Climate change and the financial sector: an agenda for action, 59 pp. [Accessed 03.05.07: http://www.wwf.org.uk/ filelibrary/pdf/allianz_rep_0605.pdf]
■Austin, G., A. Williams, G. Morris, R. Spalding-Feche, and R. Worthington, 2003: Employment potential of renewable energy in South Africa. Earthlife Africa, Johannesburg and World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Denmark, November, 104 pp.
■Baker, T., 2005: Vulnerability Assessment of the North-East Atlantic Shelf Marine Ecoregion to Climate Change, Workshop Project Report, WWF, Godalming, Surrey, 79 pp.
■Coleman, T., O. Hoegh-Guldberg, D. Karoly, I. Lowe, T. McMichael, C.D. Mitchell, G.I. Pearman, P. Scaife and J. Reynolds, 2004: Climate Change: Solutions for Australia. Australian Climate Group, 35 pp. http://www.wwf.org.au/ publications/acg_solutions.pdf
■Dlugolecki, A. and S. Lafeld, 2005: Climate change – agenda for action: the financial sector’s perspective. Allianz Group and WWF, Munich [may be the same document as “Allianz” above, except that one is dated 2006 and the other 2005]
■Fritsche, U.R., K. Hünecke, A. Hermann, F. Schulze, and K. Wiegmann, 2006: Sustainability standards for bioenergy. Öko-Institut e.V., Darmstadt, WWF Germany, Frankfurt am Main, November
■Giannakopoulos, C., M. Bindi, M. Moriondo, P. LeSager and T. Tin, 2005: Climate Change Impacts in the Mediterranean Resulting from a 2oC Global Temperature Rise. WWF report, Gland Switzerland. Accessed 01.10.2006 at http://assets.panda.org/downloads/medreportfinal8july05.pdf.
■Hansen, L.J., J.L. Biringer and J.R. Hoffmann, 2003: Buying Time: A User’s Manual for Building Resistance and Resilience to Climate Change in Natural Systems. WWF Climate Change Program, Berlin, 246 pp.
■Lechtenbohmer, S., V. Grimm, D. Mitze, S. Thomas, M. Wissner, 2005: Target 2020: Policies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the EU. WWF European Policy Office, Wuppertal
■Malcolm, J.R., C. Liu, L. Miller, T. Allnut and L. Hansen, Eds., 2002a: Habitats at Risk: Global Warming and Species Loss in Globally Significant Terrestrial Ecosystems. WWF World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland, 40 pp.
■Rowell, A. and P.F. Moore, 2000: Global Review of Forest Fires. WWF/IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 66 pp. http://www.iucn.org/themes/fcp/publications /files/global_review_forest_fires.pdf
■WWF, 2004: Deforestation threatens the cradle of reef diversity. World Wide Fund for Nature, 2 December 2004. http://www.wwf.org/
■WWF, 2004: Living Planet Report 2004. WWF- World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund), Gland, Switzerland, 44 pp.
■WWF (World Wildlife Fund), 2005: An overview of glaciers, glacier retreat, and subsequent impacts in Nepal, India and China. World Wildlife Fund, Nepal Programme, 79 pp.
■Zarsky, L. and K. Gallagher, 2003: Searching for the Holy Grail? Making FDI Work for Sustainable Development. Analytical Paper, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Switzerland
Finally, there are these authoritative sources cited by the IPCC – publications with names such as Leisure and Event Management:
■Jones, B. and D. Scott, 2007: Implications of climate change to Ontario’s provincial parks. Leisure, (in press)
■Jones, B., D. Scott and H. Abi Khaled, 2006: Implications of climate change for outdoor event planning: a case study of three special events in Canada’s National Capital region. Event Management, 10, 63-76
Thanks you were putting it up while was writing!
steve, what causes evaporation? put your kettle on and see. increased heat. some evaporation still takes place in colder conditions because there s still heat . but record flooding and snowfall can only come from increased water vapour in the atmosphere. and that can only come from increased evaporation which can only come from increased heat
Condensation occurs when the temperature is below the dew point. The absolute temperature is irrelevant.
LA had 40 inches of rain during a cold winter in 2005.
Not exactly. It’s a relationship between pressure and temperature. Ice can transition directly to vapor when pressure is reduced. (Sublimation)
Precipitation occurs when moisture in solution is precipitated out. There need not have been a boiling kettle somewhere to make that happen. If the boiling kettle were needed, Antarctica would have no ice. Warm does not mean less ice/snow AND more ice/snow at the same time.
Let’s take your argument to its logical conclusion: Will a boiling earth be experienced as an Ice Age?
steve, check the nasa website or other sources. what do you think nasa satelites are doing up there taking photos of the great wall?
Show me a NASA satellite image which shows land ice disappearing.
mike davis, you need to read a bit more. nasa the world met, the royal society and a host of other science groups totally support my position. a does the ipcc report. you talk conspiracy nonsense
Appeals to authority are only going to bring you ridicule here.
My wife is calling the paramedics for my uncontrollable fits of laughter on that one!
There is no conspiracy when it is well known what the agenda is and has always been.
a cold winter in LA is seasonal temp not global.
No. You said that more rain is associated with warm temperatures. I showed you that is nonsense.
evaporation is controlled by temp. there is evaporation when it is colder but it increases when it is warmer.
You still do not get the big picture! David!!!
rain comes from evaporation. no evaporation no water vapour. that is hardly nonsense. that is physics, what preceeds condensation steve ?
Have you ever heard of a location on the globe called the tropics?
Even at -100F there is evaporation.
You are missing a few steps in the process between evaporation and precipitation. But then simple minded people can not see the big picture.
Brown you are trying to back out. Here is the paper, published in AGU
You made the claim of “basic physics”. I showed you that you were wrong. Heck, even a housewife who hangs out washing knows what dries it.
I also suggested you google “Pan Evaporation” Do you even know what that is? There are hundreds of PE papers which show that it’s not just Ts that drive evaporation, but many factors including humidity, wind and ofcourse sunshine hours. It is SSH followed by wind. Temp. is only useful when there is NO humidity. Ever tried drying your clothes in the tropics at 32DegC? The humidity doesn’t allow it, irregardless of Ts.
You made the claim, I proved you wrong. Now you’re trying to change the goalposts by referring to the discredited IPCC. You’re appeals to scientific discourse ring hollow, ergo you’re just another tryhard lemming troll who can’t think for himself. All you’re good at is appeals to authority.
Now be a man and change your mind like you stated you would, else be labelled a coward by the denizens of this blog.
the big picture is very small and not peer reviewed
The last I knew the Big Picture included the entire globe and 4.5 billion years of global history!
Looks like David Brown is gathering his thoughts. Whilst he’s doing that, I hope Steve will allow this slightly long post which will demonstrate why lemming trolls who can’t think for themselves shouldn’t cite the IPCC before even reading that fraudulant document.
-Study Finds IPCC had Temperature – Drought Connection Backwards-
In Chapter 9 of Assessment Report 4’s (AR4) Working Group One
(WG1) Report, the IPCC claimed that manmade CO2-driven higher temperatures drive higher evaporation, and thereby cause droughts. As readers are all too aware, droughts are favorite ingredients in most alarmists’ recipes for manmade climate disaster.
In his paper, (cited by the IPCC) Neville Nicholls concluded that “the warming has meant that the severity and impacts of the most recent drought have been exacerbated by enhanced evaporation and evapotranspiration.”
Not surprisingly, as with many other AR4 irregularities that have recently surfaced, this too has a non-peer-reviewed World Wildlife Fund link to it. So then, the basis for the claim that anthropogenic warming causes droughts put forth in the IPCC’s AR4 was a WWF report and its follow-up written the next year.
But that basis, conclude Natalie Lockart, Dmitri Kavetski and Stewart W. Franks, authors of On the recent warming in the Murray-Darling Basin: Land surface interactions misunderstood, is bogus. As stated in its opening, their study “demonstrates that significant misunderstanding of known processes of land surface – atmosphere interactions has led to the incorrect attribution of the causes of the
anomalous temperatures, as well as significant misunderstanding of their impact on evaporation within the Murray-Darling Basin.” And after deconstructing the claims of both Nicholls and Karoly, concludes that:
As coauthor Stewart Franks explained to me in an email, “this is a confusion of the well known physics of evaporation – as higher air temperatures are driven by the lack of evaporation (as occurs during drought).” He explained further in a subsequent correspondence:
Of course, when there is a deficit of rainfall, this tends to be accompanied by less cloud-cover, hence more sunshine, which does increase the energy available for evaporation, but as soil moisture is low, the bulk of the energy goes into heating the near-surface
atmosphere and hence higher air temperatures.
But amazingly, the story doesn’t end with how wrong the chapter was.
Professor Franks also pointed out that Neville Nicholls was one of the chapter’s Lead Authors, and David Karoly, whose work was also heavily cited in WG1 Chapter 9, was its Review Editor.
Quipped Franks: “Hence they cite and review their own papers as part of the clearly flawed IPCC process.”
So David Brown, note the bit about the confusion of the “well known physics”?
Are you still happy to cite the IPCC which relied on WWF papers and dismiss my citing of a genuine peer reviewed paper?
Are you happy that 2 alarmist advocates, namely Nicholls and Karoly were in charge of the evaporation relevant chapter 9 in the AR4, one of them a lead author and the other the “gate keeper” as the review editor citing each others papers?
the ipcc makes no scientific decisions itself. it merely summarises published peer reviewed science. i am more than happy to cite the ipcc. or if not the ipcc report the peer reviewed published science that it came from. you offer nothing but paranoid silly conspiracy and no science
Oh brother. Now read carefully troll.
YOU stated that it was basic physics that temperature drove evaporation. YOU cited the IPCC to back your claim. YOU stated you would change your mind if peer reviewed literature that showed you were wrong was cited.
I showed you the PR paper. I referenced the evaporation relevant chapter in the AR4 i.e chp 9, and showed you that it was lead authored and reviewed by people who cited their own papers. PAPERS THAT WERE SINCE DEBUNKED BY THE ONE I CITED (dated 2010)
I also gave you real life examples (hanging out washing) where temperature IS NOT the main driver of evaporation as YOU claimed.
After all that, only thing you can come up with is “paranoid silly conspiracy”??
As I suspected, you are not man enough to admit you were wrong.
As I suspected, you are just a lemming troll.
As I suspected, I wasted my time with you.
I won’t be bothering with you any longer, but I will remember your screen name. Make sure you remember mine, BAA HUMBUG.
nichols and karroly did not discover the physics of evaporation. what causes evaporation was well known before the ipcc report. you offer nothing but silly conspiracy theory. the fossil fuel industry thanks you from the bottom of its oily heart. it dismissed ”your ” citing of ”genuine” peer reviewed paper ? if your paper was genuinely peer reviewed what is the problem? it obviously did not pass that peer review. that is not the fault of the ipcc
baa humbug, you offer nothing but conspiracy. global warming leads to extreme weather, be it wet, dry hot or cold. extreme weather of which we are now experiencing actually confirms global warming. nasa measures radiation coming into the atmosphere, it measures that radiation leaving the atmosphere and calculates what remains in the atmosphere. more is remaining according to their calculations. more radiation means more heat. its quite simple. but then nasa are part of your conspiracy eh? they are telling lies ? and that is all you have, a conspiracy and a small pile of non peer reviewed or peer reviewed but not published papers from a tiny minority of scientists that have connections to fossil fuel. you have nothing.
I thought it is KMADB! 😉
So DB, before AGW, there was no extreme weather? That is now your contention?
”the big picture”. billions of years of global history and the entire globe? what do you mean by that? anthropogenic warming only goes back a few hundred years. all else is irrelevant. there is only a need to go back to the beginning of the industrial revolution
baa humbug, unfortunately you offer only personal attack and no science. as soon as the debate becomes scientific you throw insults. that shows you are out of your depth. why dont you troll pro warming blogs? for the simple reason your arguments would not stand up to scrutiny.
I guess we can start calling you 3 finger dave since what you accuse Baa Humbug of is EXACTLY what you are doing. He has provided you with everything you asked for (and patiently I will add), you have stuck your remaining 2 fingers in your ears while yelling lalalalalalala.
every time i think of non science and poor argument i will think of you humbug. as a matter of fact your name is synonomous with it. remember what happened to scrooge in the end humbug? he saw the error of his ways . i am sure the ghost of peer reviewed published science will visit you one day with a similar happy ending.
stewart franks talks of evaporation wrongly. in areas that are wet particularly during monsoon that evaporation will increase and lead to more rain. climate change predicts flooding and drought. water vapour is not uniformed throughout the atmosphere as is c02.
humbug, it is but one peer reviewed paper even if it was published. the ipcc report summarises 10000 peer reviewed published papers. . your paper is not endorsed by any major scientific group be it nasa , the world met, the royal society or any of the academies of science. chances are it is either refuted or debunked. the majority scientific view does not endorse it. can you explain to me in your own terms what that paper actually says ? cat got your tongue
mike , the important thing is evaporation. without that the other steps do not happen
yes mike, i have heard of the tropics. they are wet humid regions. this lends itself to increased rainfall during the wet season and that is whats happening? yes steve evaporation takes place when its cold because the oceans do not freeze. however more evaporation takes place when it is warmer. you still used winter in LA as an example of global cooling. when seasonal temp are not global temp. it is obvious you do not understand what global temp actually means. can you explain it to me in your own words?
GMAFB no need to be so cryptic steve. just explain to me how you can have increased temp and c02 levels during a solar minimum?
no humbug i did not cite the ipcc to back my claim about evaporation. my claim about evaporation is standard physics and was a well known fact long before the ipcc existed. you are right not to bother with me any longer, because you will lose the argument. and your non peer reviewed. minority view not endorsed by one major scientific group on the planet will implode and you will have to look for another religion.
exactly steve, you cannot have increased temp and c02 levels during a solar minimum ”if it was a naturally occurring warming”. however seeing that increased temp and c02 levels are rising, there can only be one logical reason. and that is,” it’s anthropogenic in origin”. checkmate !
You again forgot about the tropics!
more rain is associated with warm temp steve but that doesnt mean it doest rain in cooler temp. there are other things like el nino and la nina which also influence rainfall and temp. but these are only temporary and are independent of the global temp and climate. i will make it simple for you steve. nasa measures radiation coming into the atmosphere, nasa measures that same radiation leaving the atmosphere. what remains can be calculated. more is remaining. that means more heat. it is simple and easy to follow for someone with an open mind. however you have a conservative ideology that prevents from accepting any evidence that clashes with that ideology. however any normal person can clearly see it
Can you send over some of the drugs you are taking so we can share your hallucinations.
You are getting weather and climate confused.
You have not brought long term weather patterns into the picture! Without those there would be no climate to discuss!
what about the tropics mike ? the tropics are not global anyway. and we are discussing the globe .
You do come up with some good straight lines!
This is almost like an Abbot and Costello routine:
“exactly steve, you cannot have increased temp and c02 levels during a solar minimum.”
Except that the Solar Minimum has barely begun..
We know that the 11-year Solar Cycle has very little effect on global temperatures, but that prolonged periods of low sunspot activity always seem to coincide with lower global temperatures.
If the solar physicists who say this could be the start of another Dalton minimum are correct, the next 20 years promise to be very interesting indeed…….
I suggest we keep watching and see how it plays out.
Who knows, we may actually LEARN something!
mike. i particularly like the songs you have posted thanks. but once you start relying on the pop charts for a scientific argument you are in trouble. i would urge you to start using peer reviewed published science. it is a little more congruent to the discussion
Those are peer reviewed research and well received by the scientific community. As a matter of fact more scientists believe in the research I provided than in what the IPCC produces. It is all in the numbers.
Your claim the solar minimum has been going on for 40 years places you out of the conversation as it shows you have no clue what you are talking about!
the solar minimum has been going for forty years. long enough to deduce whether it is effecting global temp. and it clearly is not. the tung camp paper conclude that the sun is only responsible for around 30% of present warming. which begs the question what is causing the rise in temp and c02 levels? only one logical explanation. anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
“the solar minimum has been going for forty years.”
Thanks for the laugh.
i am not confused about weather and climate. weather is short term, climate long term. however any rise in global temp effects weather. i do not see how you see confusion in my argument. i am totally aware of the difference between climate and weather. explain to me where my argument is confused? i am simply repeating what the scientific consensus on the subject says. i dare say climate scientists are not confused?
mike davis, you have offered not one scientific argument on the subject. some vague mention of the tropics without elaborating and another meaningless claim about a big picture. do you actually have anything to say that is based on a scientific premise or a logical argument that comes from peer reviewed published science. you provide great songs which means you could make a good dj. but your argument really is lacking in substance
Begging the question (or petitio principii, “assuming the initial point”) is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise. The first known definition in the West is by the Greek philosopher Aristotle around 350 BCE, in his book Prior Analytics, where he classified it as a material fallacy. Begging the question is related to the circular argument, circulus in probando (Latin, “circle in proving”) or circular reasoning, though these are considered absolutely different by Aristotle.[
the solar minimum has been observed for 40 years. do you have contrary peer reviewed published science to refute that? . however you will find the majority scientific view backs the 40 year period. i see you rely on wikipedia as a source.? have you tried using real sources?
mike davis, you still have not contributed any scientific details in relation to the subject we are discussing. the ancient greeks from my experience did not have a real grasp of climate science?
can you name which members of the scientific community accept your position mike? certainly not nasa, the world met, the csiro, the uk met, the aust met, the royal society, the american geophysical union , the aust coral reef society,the academies of science in any country on earth. to name but a few. oh and lets not forget the ipcc report. i am afraid you are deluded.
so ”you” provided the research mike. i really am impressed. just what are your qualifications.? there are 10000 papers in the last ipcc report. all peer reviewed and published. you would be lucky to scrape together a handful of papers.i can even name your little clique of ”scientists ”. spencer, singer, carter, linzden, ball [ who is a geography professor ] monckton [ not a scientist ] maybe allegre, easterbrook. i am running out, maybe you can add ten more to the list if you are lucky ?
anything is possible. we can all learn something? maybe, but not from you i am afraid. best you research what the science says about the solar minimum.may i suggest the tung/ camp paper as a starting point
Try this one:
I just picked this one up at WUWT!
The dramatic and threatening environmental changes announced for the next decades are the result of models whose main drive factor of climatic changes is the increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Although taken as a premise, the hypothesis does not have verifiable consistence.
mike, weather is short term by definition. how can you have long term weather? long term weather would be climate. and the climate is warming. you and anything is possible, need to stop using wikimedia and start relying on credible sources
actually mike, the greenhouse effect is standard physics. the comments you quoted are not necessarily correct. and certainly they are not endorsed by any major scientific group. are they included in the ipcc report? have they been peer reviewed. i am afraid if not, they are dubious. what is the science behind the comment?
the greenhouse effect is very consistent mike. it is not an hypothesis it is standard physics. c02 is indeed a powerful driver of climate but not the only one. what are you offering by way of explanation for present global warming? it cannot be the sun as that is in solar minimum. the earth has not changed orbit or tilt. so what is your explanation for present c02 levels and temp. do not go to wikipedia. it is not reliable
mike, you have yet to name all those members of the scientific community who agree with your position. maybe thats because they do not exist?. so far you have only posted indiscriminate comments from sources that are virtually unknown. comments that no one endorses. you also fail to mention why you mentioned the tropics? were you trying to impress me with your geographical knowledge?
the drug i take is truth serum mike. i think you would be allergic to it . long term weather patterns eh? how long precisely?
mike ,paulo soares was the author of that wuwt piece. what are his qualifications? was his view accepted by peer review and published in a science journal. take in mind there are 10000 papers in the ipcc report that disagree with him.
exactly anything is possible, you cannot have increased temp and c02 levels during a solar minimum. so there must be another explanation for present c02 and temp rise? that can only be anthropogenic greenhouse gases ?
appeals to authority are a bad thing in the mindset of people who think conspiracy. science is based on appeals to authority. without consensus there can be no science. all scientific progress is based on peer review [ appeals to authority ] . you do not need an authority to tell you the globe is warming and climate changing. it is obvious
so if the majority of scientists say its warming it is not true? they are up to something eh? planning to take over the world. so anything peer reviewed is just part of the conspiracy. if its published in a journal, even more so. if the ipcc summarise it they are in on it as well? even nasa is hiding something and david attenborough is the master mind of this evil world wide conspiracy? . not appealing to authority gives deniers a licence to try and pass off non peer reviewed, unpublished, non endorsed science as an argument. i hope you people never get involved in the airline industry cos i wont be getting on any of your planes
steve ”in california it rains when its cold?” but it rains more in warmer tropical areas where humidity is high. and it is raining even more in those areas now. and that is because of increased evaporation caused by heat. global temp is increasing regardless of cold winters in california. and that means wetter areas will become wetter and dryer areas dryer .
mike, if far more scientists believe what you say. that makes them the majority. if they are the majority doesnt that make them ”the authority ” that you should not be appealing too ? in fact, all surveys oreskes as one example, show the vast majority of scientists endorse the consensus. if what you say is true mike the consensus would be that anthropogenic warming is not happening and nasa etc would endorse it. nasa endorses the anthropogenic warming position
there is much less evaporation in cold areas steve. where it rains isnt necessarily where evaporation took place. you mentioned condensation but evaporation preceeds condensation. so that point you made about condensation is irrelevent
you mention one of your papers being peer reviewed mike ? but i thought peer review was not to be trusted? suddenly peer review is ok when it suits you? i agree the peer review process is not infallible but it is the only game in town im afraid. and virtualy all peer reviewed published science endorses anthropogenic warming.
A molecule of warm water vapour can travel up to 6000 miles. David brown is right. where evaporation takes place is not necessarily where the molecules fall as rain. Most evaporation takes place in the warm oceans . Winter in LA does not mean it was winter or cold where the the evaporation took place. More global heat leads to more evaporation globally. David is correct.
The eastern Pacific Ocean is really hot during the winter. I suggest taking a swim near San Francisco.
if the water is cold during winter then less evaporation would have taken place there. as i said most evaporation takes place in the warmer waters. you still dont get it do you?
We are having the coldest La Nina on record. Pacific Ocean temperatures are 2-4C below normal. California has record snow.
Do you have a mental block understanding this?
So why was there less snow in the 90’s when temperatures peaked?
Right about now everyone is saying the same thing but some claim it is all caused by GHGs and others seeing it as normal weather patterns.
You and David are both wrong because you are mangling what is happening. It may be just confusion but appears to be following a script written to obscure reality.
It has the stench of Romm, Moon Bat, Cook, Sinclair, Gore, And Hansen attached!
paul h,you have la nina and el nino to consider. elnino was in action during the 90s. there are also other forcing agents and natural variability to consider. it is actually warmer now than in the 90s. . i would say there was less snow[ taking your word for it ] because of natural variability. one thing that cannot be argued is that heat controls evaporation and the more rain and snow points to increased warming.
You seem to be confusing the amount of snow with snow extent.
I would agree that extra evaporation could lead to larger amounts of snow. However the graph Steve has put up is about snow extent. In other words some places are seeing snow instead rain, rather than more snow which you seem to imply.
Certainly here in the UK, the snow we have had in the last month is a direct consequence of cold air masses and definitely not “moister air” as moist air always comes from the Atlantic.
My point about the reduced snow in the 90’s is still valid (see Steve’s graph). I am afraid you cannot point to El Nino’s as these have happened in both decades. If warmer temps led to more snow then why is the snow extent lower in the 90’s than the 60’s + 70’s?
I totally agree with your comment about natural variability and would ask why you think the current increase in snow extent cannot be explained by this.
even if pacific ocean temp is lower than normal that does not mean it’s still not warming. the oceans are still warming. you have record snow because of increased water vapour in the atmosphere. that can only come from increased evaporation. and that can only come from increased temp. you should study how the hydrological system works
Cold means hot
steve .by the way what is normal in relation to ocean temp? long term trends show the oceans are warming. you are talking short term variability
ENSO temperatures are the coldest ever recorded. Please try using some logic.
short term cooling is not long term cooling. the oceans are still warming long term.
They have warmed to record cold. Brilliant.
Not according to the ARGO project.
It is cooling over all.
actually mike, myself and david are correct. how did you deduce that we were wrong? the majority scientific view agrees with us. so according to the majority of scientists we are correct. certainly my views on evaporation and rainfall are basic physics and irrefutable .trying to smear gore or hansen etc is just politics. how about a little more science?
no steve, long term global warming of oceans is different to short term regional variability. how can the global sea temp be cooling when the globe is warming?
no steve cold is not hot. the oceans are far warmer than they should be. even if there is short term cooling the oceans are still warmer than they should be. if the oceans are cold how can you get increased evaporation from them ? you contradict yourself
Are you a bot, or just not very bright? I can’t waste any more time on you.
You make no effort to discuss anything.Just post bullshit replies that have no rational meaning.
You are a determined troll.
la nina is not global temp steve. california had record snow. that snow can only come from record evaporation, seeing that snow comes from water vapour. as i keep repeating increased evaporation can only come from increased global temp. the globe is warming, nasa proves it, general observations prove it you do not get melting sea and land ice, melting glaciers, warm weather insects replacing cold weather insects in some regions, warmer winter nights, early spring. animals changing their migrating and behavioural habits, tree lines moving poleward if the planet is cooling. all evidence points to warming no matter how much you deny it
steve, when you resort to personal attack you have lost. if you are going to have a blog for the sole purpose of criticising science, make sure you have an understanding of the basics. you do not know the difference between regional temp and global temp, weather and climate, what causes evaporation and what really constitutes a warming planet [ the entire heat content not just surface or atmospheric temp ]. like mike you also avoid answering questions eg, explaining how you can have naturally occurring warming during a solar minimum [ you cannot, so the warming must be from another source ie anthropogenic] i am not a scientist but i understand the basics of the subject . you do not
mike, the greenhouse effect is standard physics and has been known for over a hundred years.
steve you go on about la nina and point to cold ocean temp [ regionally [ being cold? maybe la nina has something to do with it ? regardless, since 1955 until the present global oceans show a definite warming trend. you can point to regional or la nina effects but that is not global temperature. i suggest you research what global temp actually means because you have no idea. and again record rain and snow can only come from record evaporation, and that takes place in warm water mostly.
Whatever has happened since 1955 , the fact remains that the sea temps are very low at the moment, so your assumption about “record evaporation” simply does not stand up.
And while we are at it, perhaps you can answer my question to Gary that he could not answer.
Why was snow cover less in the 90’s than the 60’s despite warmer temps?
Perhaps you could also tell us why David Viner told us snow would be a thing of the past.
Please post evidence of “record evaporation” here.
STEVE, ENSO IS NOT CLIMATE. WHEN CALCULATING GLOBAL TEMP ENSO, SUNSPOTS ETC ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. I REPEAT, EL NINO AND LA NINA ARE NOT LONG TERM CLIMATE TREND. INSTEAD OF HAVING A TANTRUM YOU SHOULD DO YOU RESEARCH AND LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT THE SUBJECT.
sea temp is not very low at the moment globally. and ”at the moment ” is not a trend. in order to judge climate one must go back further than ”at the moment ” and going back in time gives a long term trend. and that long term trend shows the oceans are warming. how can you have record snow fall or record flooding as they are having in australia without record evaporation? where does the rain and snow come from. it comes from increased water vapour in the atmosphere. and water vapour is caused by evaporation. what i say certainly does stand up. you need to learn the difference between global temp and regional temp and the difference between weather and climate
Please spare us the drivel.
Ocean evaporation is determined by current air temperatures, humidity, sunshine, and sea surface temperatures.
It has nothing to do with graphs, peer review, or the endless mindless ramblings of the AGW faithful.
”ocean evaporation is determined by current air temp, humidity, sunshine and sea surface temp?” oh and dont forget the greenhouse gases that capture the radiation?. and all of those things apart from the sun which is in a solar minimum are increasing in temp and thus increasing evaporation. it has nothing to do with graphs, peer review eh ?. finding out whether air and sea surface temp and humidity are rising or not, or whether the sun is in solar minimum has everything to do with graphs and peer review. maybe not in your circles and hence your total lack of science and the likelyhood you do not know the subject too well
Next time you bake a cake, make sure to adjust for atmospheric CO2 levels.
Sorry, you come across as being thick as a brick.
The gibberish troll is still here.
david viner could not predict la nina or a change in the jet stream. either way it does not alter the fact that the planet is warming. more ? there was less snow cover in the 90s when it was warmer. you just answered your own question. there was less snow cover because it was warmer. evaporation takes place in warmer areas. once the water vapour is in the atmosphere it is subject to natural variability
Excuses,excuses and more drivel based excuses.David Viner STILL stands by his already refuted “snow is becoming a thing of the past” predictions he made over 8 years ago.
Why are you here anyway?
an oven does not operate in the same way as the planet. regardless of whether im thick as a brick or not, i have absolutely no problem in dealing with you
You have a problem dealing with logic. Molecules don’t care what people think about them.
steve, you should quit while you’re behind. ha ha
Why don’t you design a CO2 oven? It should be a huge seller.
”molecules do not care what people think about them?” that is very profound steve. so now you are saying that molecules think? and then ask ”me” to be logical. as gary said, you should quit while you’re behind
Keep talking. It is good to see inside the borg.
Borg are not that stupid.
“you should quit while you’re behind”
David, you might consider quitting trying to think with yours. It isn’t serving you well at all.
a c02 oven and a molecule that thinks? steve i think you should use your thinking molecule as a role model. a c02 oven? i wonder why the germans didn’t think of that ?
Not once have you posted actual data/facts in this comment thread.Not only that all of your replies are strictly opinions,since you never back any of it up.
Meanwhile you were given data/facts and even heavens forbid,Science research information.You bla,bla,bla in reply.
I have personal experience in drying clothes outside in the hot (90 F) sunny and HUMID (90+%) days.It takes ALL day to get them 90% dry,and that includes some light wind.They are on the clothe line day and night before they are dry.I did this in the Philippines on Camiguin Island.There is a reason why dryers are considered essential there.
I also dry them in my Kennewick Washington backyard.Where it is very often less than 40% humid in the afternoons.They can dry in just 15-30 on a warm sunny day with some wind.
I learned that they dry much faster in the sun than in the shade,even with the same temperature range.If it is windy they dry fast even in some shade because of low humidity.
You fail big time.
paul h has gone quiet? he must be satisfied with my answer. maybe he is trying to squeeze steve’s thinking molecule into his head?
Water evaporating from the ocean does not care what morons think is supposed to be happening, or what they think happened in the past.
I have just come back from dinner at the local pub – it is evening here.
I see you still have not found the capital letters on your keyboard (or is it Gary’s) .
Still I have had no answer as to why there was less snow in the 90’s compared to the 60’s despite your theory predicting that warmer temps should have brought more.
All I have seen is the usual Warmist argument that everything that happened in the past was due to natural factors but everything that happens now is due to global warming.
I am going to switch off and have a whiskey and a cigar so if you want to carry on you will have to come back in the morning.
drying clothes are not an indicator of global temperature or climate . you should be telling your story to the chap down the laundromat. all of my opinions are backed by nasa and the consensus mate. yours are backed by westinghouse. i think i win. the sun is setting on your argument mate, or should i say” lack” of argument. the fossil fuel industry thanks you from the bottom of its heart
exactly steve, the planet does not care what morons think either. it will still continue to warm
Only a complete moron would describe the current weather on this planet as being the product of warming oceans.
sunsetting, how long does it take your underpants to dry? you can check my sources by googling the ipcc report or the nasa website. or have a read of the royal societys latest report. i was given no credible science. the posts did not know the difference between regional temp or global temp, weather or climate so i would not call what they were posting as science. far from it. again how long does it take for your underpants to dry?
I get it now. Moisture evaporating off 1C water in Baffin Bay is causing record snow in California. You are a genius.
He fails to realize that it was an unusually big storm front,that extended for over 500 miles to the west,from the California coast.
That is a major reason why there was above average precipitation.
I posted about this already and you manage to miss this part:
“I have personal experience in drying clothes outside in the hot (90 F) sunny and HUMID (90+%) days.It takes ALL day to get them 90% dry,and that includes some light wind.They are on the clothe line day and night before they are dry.I did this in the Philippines on Camiguin Island.There is a reason why dryers are considered essential there.”
You have NO experience in this.I do.
sunsetty, predictions can be wrong. it still does not undermine the climate change argument. it takes more than a prediction about snowfall to do that . ”why am i here ”? good question.i must be bored.
“sunsetty, predictions can be wrong. it still does not undermine the climate change argument.”
You seem to imply that there was a time there was no climate change.
Please tell us when those idyllic days of this happened?
DB – when ALL predictions are wrong and you cling to the same belief, then it is no longer science, but religion. Yours is a false god.
sunsetty . i am amazed you havent had hundreds of scientists in your backyard examining this rivetting evidence, that totally undermines decades of research and the thousands of peer reviewed science papers. not to mention those nasa satelite images. they could have saved themselves lots of time and expense and interviewed you about your wash day? there must be peer reviewed. published science paper somewhere with your name on it ?
sunsetty , there was a time when there was no ”manmade” climate change. just before the industrial revolution i think
I’m sure that you can tell the difference between man-made climate change and natural climate change.
evaporation takes place in warmer areas and seas. steve. the water vapour did not necessarily come from boffin bay as you say. you have find an ally in sunsetty. maybe the two of you can put forth a coherent argument. i said warming oceans provide water vapour and that is all. and water vapour creates rain or snow. would you call that influencing weather ?
Global SSTs are below normal. What part of that is it that you can’t comprehend?
scientist can deduce certain things steve. for naturally occurring climate change to take place there needs to be certain things happening eg, increased solar activity, a change in the earth orbit or tilt, increased volcanic activity etc. none of these things are factor at present. so there can only be one reasonable explanation. unless you can think of an other ? something tells me you cannot ?
You again provide evidence that you have absolutely no clue. All the things besides increased GHGs provided by humans are continuing at about the same rate the were before the industrial revolution.
there is increased c02 in the atmosphere and increased radiation. that can only lead to warming. what is it you cant comprehend?
I was riding my bike in -21C weather last night. I must have missed the increased radiation from all that extra CO2.
The amount of additional radiation from an additional 100 ppm of CO2 is miniscule.
Hansen’s catastrophe is based on feedback. If you don’t understand that, you shouldn’t be talking about it.
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Steve Goddard wrote:
> I was riding my bike in -21C weather last night. I must have missed the > increased radiation from all that extra CO2. > >
again steve you mention 21 degree ”weather ”. climate is not weather.it is not miniscule if you throw in positive feedback from the water vapour created by the increase in temp produced by the c02. amount is not as important as climate sensitivity to the c02. an increase of 100 ppm in a a few hundred years is unprecedented. the greenhouse effect warms the planet without it we would freeze. and c02 is the most dominant gas in volume , and it is responsible for most of the warming. you still talk of weather as climate so your understanding of the entire climate change subject is limited
Just about every thing you claim in that rant is wrong!
Climate is weather and without weather there can be no climate.
Weather is not climate but long term weather patterns are observed to determine climate. It is the LONG TERM weather PATTERNS that are CLIMATE.
There are no positive feed backs because the earth receives more energy from the sun than it needs so a negative or restrictive mechanism is controlling long term weather patterns. Changes in the restrictive extent allows warming and cooling.
This is the explanation for the cool sun paradox and why the globe is colder during northern hemisphere winter when the earth is the closest to the sun.
CO2 follows warming and that is evident in historic records. That leaves your entire argument dead in the water.
Air temperature has nothing to do with evaporation and only an idiot would believe otherwise. Evaporation does have a lot to do with air temperature as it is one of the controlling factors for air temperature. You can not warm water by warming the air! You will always warm the air by warming the water!
When relative warm moist air comes in contact with cold dry air, the warmth is removed from the warm air lowering the temperature below the condensation level resulting in precipitation.
There is a process called freeze drying! You should look it up to understand evaporation better. The other research that would help is to study Evaporative cooling. It works well in a hot dry region!
can you tell me how snow is created. is it from water vapour or not? how is water vapour produced? by evaporation or not ? what causes evaporation? is it an increase in temp or not ? is it a coincidence that the southern hemisphere being the warmest of the hemispheres is also the wettest?
What a remarkable simple-minded analysis.
Evaporation requires WATER and any fool knows that Snow is created by Snow Fairies dancing around Father Winter when he comes to visit!
SHEESH! Dont you know anything?
Just a thought for all to consider here, but… after reading numerous posts by “david brown” and “gary eck”,… and comparing the two posting styles, identical phrasing, identical lack of proper punctuation, near identical wording, identical types of mistakes in sentence structure, identical refusal to accept any science that refutes the previous assumptions, etc… it’s my opinion that in this thread the names “david brown” and “gary eck” are being used by one & the same individual person. A single person who isn’t really interested in discussing the science itself, but who in fact is far more interested in behaving like a “Board Troll”.
Ah’m just sayin’… 😉
I long recognized that he is a factless troll.Just blathers with opinions and nothing more.
That is why I stopped with this fool.
Notice how he can not fathom the idiocy of his implying that there was a time that there were no climate change going on.
This is shown by his own words:
““sunsetty, predictions can be wrong. it still does not undermine the climate change argument.””
That is why I stopped.He is too dumb to realize that what he offers is kindergarten stuff for skeptics to tolerate.
two cents worth, i am afraid thats what your opinion is worth. give me an example of the science i am not accepting. maybe the one where steve talks of weather when we are discussing climate? maybe his quoting regional temp when the issue is global temp? maybe when steve cannot accept that increased temp causes evaporation. and that increases in evaporation logically lead to increases in water vapour and thus rain or snow. how about his comparing the climate of the planet to an oven ? i could go on, but i think steve and mikes ”science ” speaks for itself. no one with half a brain would accept even ”two cents worth of it” i suggest you go and read some peer reviewed published science then try and formulate a sensible argument. cannot see that happening, so best take your medication and go to bed
You intermix weather and climate as you do not have a firm grasp on the difference!
There is NO global temperature because on any day in one region it can be over 100F and below 100F in another region of the globe. There is regional weather patterns which are studied to observe regional climate. Mixing it all together removes the important signals that are needed to understand weather and extending that to understanding climate!
Increased temperatures do not necessarily lead to increased evaporation unless you are boiling a pot of water . Dry cold air blowing across my trees evaporates the moisture in the trees. Dry cold air blowing across my pond evaporates the water in my pond! Dry cold air blowing across clothes hanging on the line evaporates the water out of the clothes!
I do believe you should visit your proctolagist to get your cranium removed from your colorectal region:
After a few weeks of therapy you should be better than ever before!
To: david brown — My reply to you will be below, at the end of the thread.
Be gentle with the child! 😉
Someone told David thaat warming would lead to droughts and he is afraid that will dry out his wood and keep him from becoming a real person.
mike ,evaporation does indeed require water and obviously a heat source? your fairy analogy is the most sensible thing you have contributed science wise . keep up the good work
Water and ENERGY! A heat source is not necessary and is observed in the real world.
I will bring up FREEZE DRY once more!
Most of the water in the ocean is evaporated in a thin layer on top that leads to cooling the water under. But then you would need to visit a body of water and do a bit of research to understand that.
its a simple analysis for a simple person to understand steve. thats why i wrote it that way. but even that goes over your head. i would study it if i were you because it is correct physics .
Right. CO2 has increased from 0.0003 to 0.0004 atmospheric concentration – so obviously there is more snow.
You are a genius.
sunset, you have experience hanging out the washing. to be honest i occasionally hang out the washing to. just what were you attempting to say? how is your experience in hanging out the washing relevent to the subject ?
Drying clothes requires evaporation!!!! Numb Nuts!!!
that is exactly right steve. that increase has led to more snow and an increase in global temp. i am not a genius it just seems that way compared to you. read a little more on the subject, particularly from peer reviewed published science and get back to me. particularly read something on atmospheric physics and the hydrological system. then read a book on climate, then read a book on weather and see if there’s a difference .
The record cold from one pole to the other is due to increased air temperatures and heat in the ocean. Brilliant.
there is more snow because of increased water vapour in the atmosphere. and that is happening because the planet is warming. only an increase in temp can lead to more evaporation. simple physics steve. how can you dispute it?
During the 1990s, when temperatures actually were warm, there was little snow.
It is very cold now, and there is lots of snow. You live in Hansen’s dream world.
its not the amount of c02 in the atmosphere its the effect it has. we still pump 30 billion tons of it into the atmosphere annually. see when you use those measurements it seems a little more impressive i think?
The atmosphere is 5,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg.
That is five billion, billion kg.
its actually warmer now steve. this is the hottest decade in recorded history. and more snow or less snow does not make any difference to global temp. you are talking weather not climate.
That statement is FOS! You are talking weather because the historical record shows regions that have been cold for the last 800 years were warm before that. They actually found full grown trees where glaciers are melting now. Recorded history even includes growing grapes in the UK that can not be grown today or during your so called warmest decade in recorded history.
If you believe that you need to learn how to read!
My last try with this ignorant lemming:
hansens world is the real world steve. it is a world proven to exist by peer reviewed , published science and the laws of physics. it is you who lives in a fantasy world. in your fantasy world weather is climate, regional is global. molecules can think and the world is an oven. you may need therapy
I forgot, Manhattan was underwater in 2008 as Hansen forecast.
its very cold now and there’s lots of snow? its not snowing in australia steve its flooding. that increased water vapour due to increased global temp can lead to both snow and rain.
It is summer in Australia and they had a big snowstorm last week.
But you are wandering off topic. The record cold and snow in the northern hemisphere is the topic.
where did hansen say that ? can you give me the details? queensland is defintely under water at present. give it time?
I’ve written several articles about it.
You can’t show up on a blog very late and pretend to know what is going on. Use the search box.
the record cold is weather brought on by la nina and a change in the wind patterns. the increased global temp is responsible for increased water vapour and that obviously explains the snow. and the rain in australia
The oceans are abnormally cold. You are trying to blame the snow on warm oceans, which exist only in your mind.
his prediction was incorrect if he said it. but predictions can be incorrect, that is the nature of predictions. you are using straw man. the planet is still warming regardless of wrong predictions. lord mockton who you no doubt admire? claimed there was an explosion of land plants during the cambrian period. land plants had not evolved then. ian plimer another one of your expets claimed volcanos emit more c02 than man. so if you want to get nit picky i could produce many examples not of wrong predictions but wrong science and bare faced lies. maybe you could write something about monckton and plimer ?
All one needs to do is read most of what you are writing to read Bald Faced Lies!
You continue to talk about weather events when you talk about a warming trend that is a portion of the variable climate the globe experiences and has experienced since the globe had weather / climate. That is in all the historical records that have not been corrupted to promote the agenda. All the records from high elevations and high latitudes show long term weather patterns that cycle from warm to cold and the cycles appear to happen on average of 60 years, varying from 40 to 80 depending on extraneous circumstances. According to records from the last 5 thousand years and recent conditions we were expected to transition to cooling any time between the mid 90s and the mid 00s. Because the records have been corrupted beyond ant value all that is left is supposition regarding the transition point. It will become more obvious as the next few years proceed to cool. Remember it is a BUMPY ride whether up or down and the down trend is obvious in more recent records. That is why the push to blame global warming for snow. El Nino is a weather event! and the warmth displayed in the tropics takes a bit of time to be displayed in the polar regions. Think MONTHS!
When that warmth is gone there is none waiting!!!! La NINA!!!
the oceans are not abnormally cold. long term trend shows warming. how cold is the south pacific or the indian ocean? there is more to warming than just the oceans temp global temp means the entire heat content of the planet. and that is empirically measured by satelite.
How does your belief that the oceans are warming long term change the fact that sea surface temperatures are currently below normal?
Do you have any concept of how irrational your thought process is?
I doubt he even know about the ARGO project.
the snow comes from evaporation from the warmest oceans. you cannot have increased evaporation and hence record snow and rainfall, without increased global warmth.
David: get your head out of your ass! Do you realize just how stupid you sound! Where do you think all the glaciers came from?
During the last Glacial Maximum most claim it was colder during the summers and that allowed the ice to remain on the ground year round and to accumulate as it continued to snow and the ice grew to more than a mile thick. Do you actually believe warmth is needed to maintain the ice cap on Antarctica?
record snow fall and flooding is not in my mind. and evaporation in oceans can only come from increased warmth. that is standard physics
the greenhouse effect is standard physics. the weight of the atmosphere does not matter. a drop of arsenic is far lighter than the weight of a person, but the person will die if they take it. the small amount does not matter
Yes there is a greenhouse effect. Is that as far as you have taken this?
climate change means climate change. in your fantasy world, climate is only warm. the consequences of too much c02 in the atmosphere was predicted well over a century a go. extremes are what its about. extreme heat or extreme cold. all was predicted
You are just reciting rhetoric. This is a science blog, where we actually look at the data.
the greenhouse effect is what its all about. the increase of greenhouse gases effect climate. it is standard physics. unfortunately i have had to deal with your lack of knowledge in the area . your inability to differentiate between weather and climate. you inability to differentiate between regional temp and global. and your inability to understand the hydrological cycle and heat.
This is not about simple physics. Nobody believes that a rise from 300 to 400 ppm CO2 has a large first order effect on temperature.
Hansen’s paranoia is about feedbacks.
you have provided no data yourself .no peer reviewed papers or sources. i am not going to waste my time providing individual studies. my views on heat and evaporation is standard physics. if you want my data check the 10000 papers that the ipcc report summarises. check the latest report by the royal society or the world met. check the nasa website. etc. they offer more than rhetoric. and i offered more than rhetoric that you had no counter argument for. does your data tell you that whether and climate are the same thing or that regional temp is global temp. if it does then its wrong data. this is the most unscientific blog i have ever seen
Even if the trend did exist, how would that change the current below normal SSTs?
The fact that the oceans were warm ten years ago has no impact on what is evaporating in January, 2011.
you are wrong 98 % of climate scientists and every major scientific group on earth fully believes that co2 increases temperature and that it is dangerous . the jump from 300 to 400 [ actually 280 to 380 ppm] is unprecedented. usually a leap of a 100ppm takes thousands of years not a few hundred. temperature rise is also likewise a very slow process when it occurs naturally. you need to research the subject a little more
The Met Office and NOAA predicted a warm winter. They were wrong. Appeals top authority are pointless.
the greenhouse effect is standard physics.. c02 absorbs radiation, more c02 means more radiation. more radiation means more global heat. thats it in a nutshell
David: That is total BULLSHIT!
See your doctor to have your med dose adjusted! You either need more or you are taking to much your hallucinations are turning out to be bad trips and they will fry your mind if not corrected!
winter is not climate. predicting weather is far harder than predicting climate. weather is far more chaotic. getting weather wrong does not mean they got climate wrong. regardless of the cold snap the global temp and c02 levels still continue to rise
They got CLIMATE WRONG! Global temperatures are decreasing!
IT IS THE SUN STUPID!
appeals top authority whatever that means is not pointless. there is no other way. if i am sick i go to a qualified doctor and put my health in the hands of medical science. that is commonsense. same thing with any science. you listen to the people that know, the people with a great track record. and that is the scientific authority. they are not always right but chances are they are. your own commonsense and observations can show you climate change is happening. i have already detailed things you can observe eg tree lines, migratory habits of animals. early spring. what have you got offer by comparison? little in the way of peer reviewed published science. little in the way of credible sources . and poor physics. you are irrational and almost religious in your views. no weight of evidence could change your mind because you are secure in your ideology even tough that ideology is illogical
Visit your doctor as it is obvious your are suffering from a chronic condition. I have met others with the same condition and it was part of my job to recognize it. It is curable if the proper corrective action is followed!
Your tree lines are further south and further down slope than they were 800 years ago. Migratory habits ob fauna depend on seasonal weather not climate!
What early spring? There is an ice classic held in Alaska since the late 1800s and there is no observable tend in the break up day. It varies from year to year but that is regional weather.
The rest of your rant is just BS. I heard the same type of garbage from cult members when I was doing deprogramming as a volunteer to assist those that had been brainwashed reenter society and live normal lives!
to: “david brown/gary eck”… My reply to you is: The science that you’re clearly “not accepting” here is revealed by your own words above… where you persist in repeating the mistaken belief which you expressed as:… “evaporation in oceans can only come from increased warmth.”
The above statement is the basis of virtually all of your attempted arguments here. Yet actual peer-reviewed scientific papers have been quoted to you in the thread above that disprove this rather simple-minded concept of yours. Real world examples have been pointed out to you that also disprove this rather simple-minded concept of yours. Yet you persist in chanting it over & over again anyway, as if it’s your religious dogma that your “faith” is based upon.
The fact that you ignore the peer-reviewed & published scientific papers that prove your assumption us wrong, and return to chanting that already falsified mantra of yours instead – is what (IMO) makes you nothing more than a “Board Troll”, and not a serious scientific debator.
Yup he is a troll.
His statement is dumb anyway since most of the pacific ocean is a deep La-Nina phase and still California along with the West got drenched and snowed on hard.The last few weeks.
Mammoth got 13 FEET of snow a week ago.That is from drawing the moisture from a cooling pacific ocean.
yah those storms coming down from the gulf alaska sure are warm….
I would be willing to bet that they are warmer than the ones following the same path 20 thousand years ago when the weather patterns out of the Arctic had to pass over Beringia!
Of course that was climate and this is weather!
water vapour comes from heat. that is standard physics and snow comes from water vapour. and snow is weather not climate . and yes it has been warmer but that was naturally occurring and was explained by either increased solar activity or a change in the earths orbit. it was also very gradual. present warming is not caused by any of those things and his rising at an unprecedented rate as are c02 levels.
Not only that, but imbecile spam (which tastes terrible).
my ”mistaken belief ” about increased water vapour coming from increased heat is standard physics. you are reading the wrong science books. please explain how water vapour is created then ? it comes from evaporation and evaporation happens when induced by a heat source
i am afraid when it comes to peer reviewed published science you are greatly outnumbered. if your peer reviewed papers are telling you that weather is climate, and that regional temp is global temp and that water vapour is created by anything other than increased warmth in the atmosphere they would not have passed peer review
migratory habit of fauna is seasonal but those seasons are arriving early, meaning warmth is arriving early. and that is due to climate as climate effects the seasons and weather. the trees should not be where they are if it was cooling, regardless of where they were 800 years ago. c02 levels should be 280ppm and we should be cooling and we are not. melting land and sea ice, melting glaciers and the nights are warmer. they are indications that it is warming and there is no natural reason for it as the sun is in solar minimum.
”they got climate wrong its the sun stupid” how very scientific of you. the trouble for you is is that they got climate right as all observed evidence and data prove. increased radiation in the atmosphere can not lead to anything other than increased heat. nasa measures radiation levels
mike ,the greenhouse effect is standard physics and was proven well over a century ago ” that is bullshit ” is not a scientific response. i thought this blog prided itself on being scientific?
OK, the “greenhouse effect” is perpetual motion machine bull shit.
And I mean, FRAUDULENT, UNADULTERATED bull shit.
Maybe that clarification suffices to answer your objections.
”its the sun stupid” what peer reviewed published science paper was that in mike? the sun is in solar minimum at present and has been since 1970. that cannot be the reason for increased global temp. you are the one who thinks weather is climate mike. your scientific expertise is very much in doubt on this subject, your views on solar activity and the greenhouse effect simply confirms it .
That is Bull Shit!
peer reviewed scientific papers are not ignored by me. there are summaries of 10000 peer reviewed published science papers in the ipcc report. if your supposed peer reviewed science papers say anything other than its warming globally and c02 levels are rising they did not pass peer review. so that makes them dubious and not the majority scientific view. if your papers were authored by people like spencer, singer. linzden they are tainted by fossil fuel connections. all in all you do not have a case .
storms are also weather. i thought this blog prided itself on its science and yet people still confuse weather with. climate. that tells me you do not know anything on this topic, other than what fox news as told you .you provide not one shred of scientific rebuttal. just name calling , incorrect physics and terms like ”that is total bullshit” ”its the sun stupid ” hardly serious scientific debate.
la nina has an effect sunset but climate is still warming. the oceans still show a warming trend as opposed to a short term cooling phase. ? . as the southern pacific ocean suddenly become a cold water region ? how would marine life cope?. you should stop watching fox news
Well at least it gave Steve a winner of a blog! Over 300 comments and counting, and all you have to do is bait the trolls!
actually i am baiting you. i just wanted to find out how little you all knew. it has gone beyond my wildest dreams. not one legit piece of science between you all. for the record, ocean temp beneath 800 yards of the surface is 0.36 degrees c above normal. your physics where increased snow fall is not caused by increases in water vapour is ground breaking. your claims that weather is climate is also most interesting. i could go on but i feel like an atheist intruding on some kind of religious order. have a happy new year. i am moving on to more challenging blogs
[waves good-bye with damp handkerchief]
First of all, your core assumption is wrong. http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_InPress_final.pdf
Second of all, water evaporates from the surface. Even if the water at depth 500 metres was above normal, it is the sea surface temperatures which affect the weather. Weather models use sea surface temperatures.
You are a moron.
brian g valentine, everything is bullshit? is that a peer reviewed scientific statement? i suppose thats what is called ”the certainty of ignorance ”on your part ? you should really try ad respond in a more scientifically coherent way. otherwise you may come across as ignorant .
If the stratosphere cools as a result of the “greenhouse” effect, whilst the troposphere warms, and if the tropopause conducts heat, then why does this construct not constitute a perpetual motion machine of the second kind?
If the tropopause increases in elevation in response to “greenhouse” warming, then how does the associated pV work of the atmosphere account for the work needed to move heat from a colder reservoir to a warmer reservoir?
Supply us with a reasonable answer, any at all, and I’ll stop making fun. I promise!
brian, that damp hankie represents the sum total of your scientific contributions.
of course water evaporates from the surface. but you said the oceans were cooling the data says different. you cannot have increased evaporation without an increase in temp. that is physics.
the stratosphere cools because less heat is escaping from the troposphere. i hope you are not trying to say that the second law of thermodynamics makes the greenhouse effect impossible ? see brian i do not need convoluted questions. i can keep it simple which means i actually understand the subject. now let me ask you a question. how do you explain present rising temp and c02 levels when there is solar min imum? if you can answer that one i will stop making fun of you
explain present rising temp
News to me!
and c02 levels
The same way the periodicity of cooling over the decades 1950-1970 was explained: it had NOTHIN to do with CO2 in the air in the first place.
Various factors have made the shifting of ocean heat apparent (or not) over various decades, consistent with the emergence from a LIA of centuries ago.
another question brian. how do you explain melting sea ice, land ice and glaciers with a cooling planet ? another simple question. no convoluted nonsense. were you trying to dazzle me with your intellect?. it failed badly
what is the cooler reservoir brian? sorry to spring another question on you when you cannot answer the previous ones. take your time and breath deeply. it will help you relax
what is the cooler reservoir brian
The stratosphere, David.
Why don’t you capitalize and punctuate correctly? When I receive emails written in this manner I ignore them.
Perhaps you should do the same with troll posters. He has been wrong (and proven wrong) so many times, he has become an excellent reverse barometer.
sea surface temperature is also rising globally trendwise steve. hence the increase in water vapour from the necessary evaporation needed to produce all that snow you mentioned
deeper ocean warming effects coral and other marine life. thats why i mentioned it. it had nothing to do with my evaporation comments
Corals live in the top 20 metres.
Do not confuse him with facts.
why didnt you say stratosphere then. and what was the actually point of your questions ?
The point was, that the “atmospheric greenhouse” idea was, and remains, a myth, (and a malicious one at that), and a physical impossibility, that cannot be rectified in the realm of physics.
brian, you may choose to ignore mine because you cannot answer basic questions. shall i repeat one? how do you explain present increased global temp and c02 levels with a solar minimum? cat got your tongue
Faith in physics, Dave! Just have faith. When you drive your car or walk down a flight of stairs, you have faith in physics without even thinking about it.
Now keep the faith here! If an atmospheric greenhouse is impossible, it’s impossible, and you’re fretting and belittling won’t make it true – and it won’t improve your mental outlook either.
brian, increased temp and c02 levels are not news to nasa and the world met. they have known for decades. maybe you need to get out more? cooling in 70s really. climate takes decades to measure
the greenhouse effect is standard physics brian and has been know for over a 100 years. why is it a physical impossibilty? how do you explain the earth being warm without the gh effect? we would be like the the moon seeing we are the same distance from the sun
OK, I’ll answer that, and then I gotta leave here.
I don’t know how the greenhouse idea continues to persist, because it has been repeatedly debunked over 100 years (yet continues to take on a Zombie-like life of its own repeatedly), and I must resort to a psychological explanation of having some physical phenomenon appear possible without deeper reflection that constitutes a morality play for many.
The Earth is heated by radiation, which is at a sort of steady-state with heat loss as a result of radiation, and apparent surface heat is sometimes augmented with geothermal heat at various times.
The “greenhouse” effect, as it is normally understood, is simply a misunderstanding of the time and spatial average of differences in diurnal temperatures that result from the evaporation of water by radiant heat and distributed by convection in the atmosphere.
Various authors have taken the normal adiabatic lapse in atmospheric altitude as the “greenhouse” effect, which is absurd
You have digressed into mindless straw man arguments.
the greenhouse effect has been observed in the lab brian. you should research the work of arhenius [ not sure about the spelling]
you have not explained why the gh effect is impossible. you have also failed to answer my questions
physics is fact not faith brian. and deceiving myself that the gh effect was impossible would be worse for my mental health. and you stil have not answered my questions
steve, you have been asleep for most of your life mate, why wake up now. especially if it requires answering a few questions eh? . go back to sleep mate leave the thinking to those of us who are awake
No matter how many times I answer your questions, your ears and eyes are plugged. You have no comprehension of the science and live in a world of AGW slogans.
still waiting for the answers brian> why is the gh effect impossible? and how do you explain present rises in temp and c02 levels with a solar minimum?
steve , where did you answer my questions. my slogans as you call them are backed by peer reviewed published science and nasa. who backs your idea that weather is climate and the seas are cooling globally.you will find no one does steve? that kinda speaks for itself
You are too busy shouting slogans, and everything is flying right past you.
so nasa, the world met , the csiro, the royal society and the academies of science do not understand the gh effect but you do? the explanation you offer is not backed by anyone, certainly no climate scientist on earth.c02 absorbs radiation that is standard physics. more co2 means more radiation in the atmosphere. that increased radiation is increased heat. it really is quite simple. your explanation is not peer reviewed majority view, and goes against the laws of physics. what hold s the radiation in the atmosphere? who are your authors? the gh effect as i said before is standard physics. you talk convoluted nonsense
what is flying past me steve apart from your silly conspiracy they about scientists planning to overthrow the world. you cannot answer my questions. where did you answer mine. i have loked in vain for one piece of peer reviewed explanations on your part there is nothing. you cannot even accept that evaporation needs a heat source and the warmer it is logically the more evaporation there is. for a critic of science you have provided no credible science to back your view. you just have conpsiracy. and a pathological fear of change
Dave, your comments carry all the weight and conviction of graffiti on a junior high school bathroom wall.
scientists know the difference between adiabatic lapse and the gh effect. brian. if they did not they would be unemployed very quickly. you talk unsubstantiated claptrap. the gh effect has been understood for nearly 150 years. it can even be observed on other planets. . who taught you such nonsense. can you name the scientists you got it from? what are their names , are they cited or published in science journals . if not you have a credibility problem. also you have failed to answser my other questions, no wonder you have to go. id beat a hasty retreat if i were you as well
i have the weight of the majority scientific view on my side brian. nasa, the world met, the royal society and the ipcc report. that gives me a lot of weight. who endorses your view. can you name one credible scientific group. can you cite one peer reviewed published science paper endorsed by nasa or the royal society? . you personally attack people when you have been found out and offer no credible science, no sources. goodness me the toilet wall is reserved for you mate. and if your physics was used to build it it would fall down very quickly indeed
argumentum ad verecundiam
phil jourdan, straw man indeed. glad you agree with me
phil, thanks for agreeing with me again. i agree steve is delusional.
I delusionaly believe that Manhattan is not underwater.
db – adhd
Yes Steve, snow is caused by cooling, but the water vapour snow derives from, actually comes from warming.
They never had snowy winters before people started worrying about global warming.
Come on you guys David Brown is a THREAD troll.
He is thriving on your replies with his empty comments.They are devoid of rationality and does not attempt to carry on a conversation at all.
I have yet to see an actual cogent explanation on anything from this dude.He never post sourced information or make factual counterpoints.
He is a perfect example of the bla,bla,bla troll.
I suggest that you ignore this embarrassment.
354 replies to this thread, Romm will be livid when he sees that Steve’s blog is generating more interest than his.
The fact that three-quarters of the posts are mindless drivel courtesy of David Brown ain’t going to to show up in the stats. (:-
Yeah, but Romm filters his and Steven does not. If you don’t have the mentality of dishwater Joe won’t allow your comment to appear.
Look at Mr Brown’s comments and ask yourself, how did the Nazis get as far as they did?
Slight Correction Brian. Romm does not “filter” he “censors”. While he would allow the mindless drivel of david brown through, he would not have allowed the sound reasoned and annoted posts through from all the rest. It would endanger his standing in the high priesthood of AGW.
Brown is just his toady.