For all you climate change deniers ....

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/312-16/26175-what-35000-walruses-forced-to-the-beach-tell-us-about-global-warming


Can't wait for the far furry right's response ....

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/october/nasa-study-finds-earth-s-ocean-abyss-has-not-warmed/#.VDMCG8q2Vys

Th Dude wrote:http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/october/nasa-study-finds-earth-s-ocean-abyss-has-not-warmed/#.VDMCG8q2Vys

The linked study centers on deep water temperatures. I've copied a pertinent section from the report: The study took advantage of the fact that water expands as it gets warmer. The sea level is rising because of this expansion and the water added by glacier and ice sheet melt.

This confirms the Walrus story -- that northern polar ice is diminishing and stressing this species. Comment?

Happy 18th anniversary to 18 years without a global warming trend Yesterday at 4:07 pm



PACEDOG#1




Online
Posts: 11003
Join date: 2012-06-14





Happy Anniversary: 1 October Marks 18 Years Without Global Warming Trend

Via The GWPF Global Warming Pause Comes Of Age

The Earth’s temperature has “plateaued” and there has been no global warming for at least the last 18 years, says Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at the University of Alabama/Huntsville. “That’s basically a fact. There’s not much to comment on,” Christy said when CNSNews.com asked him to remark on the lack of global warming for nearly two decades as of October 1st. –Barbara Hollingsworth, CBS News, 30 September 2014

Image

Figure 1. RSS monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies (dark blue) and trend (thick bright blue line), October 1996 to August 2014, showing no trend for 17 years 11 months.

More on the “The pause” here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/04/g ... -11-months

What will the Warming Pause do next? Get a job? Go on a gap year? Maybe go to college and rack up some proper student debt. Who knows, but it’s worth celebrating the good news that the planet’s temperatures are not accelerating to thermageddon. –Josh, Bishop Hill 1 October 2014

The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant. –Phil Jones, University of East Anglia 5 July 2005

Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried. -Phil Jones, University of East Anglia 7 May 2009

2014 will probably be in the top five warmest, but at the moment it will probably not turn out to be warmer than 2010. It is impossible for it to beat 2010 by a statistically significant margin, even if we define that as only one standard deviation above the decadal mean. Even if 2014 does beat 2010 it will only be by a statistically insignificant margin and well within the inter-annual error bars. In all probability 2014 will continue the global surface temperature standstill in a statistically perfect manner. When will the global surface annual temperature start to rise out of the error bars of the past 18 years? –David Whitehouse, The Global Warming Policy Forum, 28 September 2014

It’s fair to say that this pause is something of an embarrassment to many in the climate research community, since their computer models failed to indicate that any such thing could happen. Just how long the temperature pause must last before it would falsify the more catastrophic versions of man-made climate change obviously remains an open question for many researchers. For the time being, most are betting that it will get real hot real fast when the hiatus ends. –Ronald Bailey, Reason Online, 9 September 2014

Former United Kingdom environment secretary Owen Paterson launched an attack against the “wicked green blob,” saying policies to stop global warming might do more harm than good. “There has not been a temperature increase now for probably 18 years, some people say 26 years,” Paterson told an audience at the Conservative party conference over weekend. “So the pause is old enough to vote, the pause is old enough to join the army, the pause is old enough to pay its taxes.” –Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller, 29 September 2014

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/01/happy-anniversary-1-october-marks-18-years-without-global-warming-trend/

You lie wordslinger


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html

Myth of Arctic meltdown: Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres MORE than 2 years ago...despite Al Gore's prediction it would be ICE-FREE by now

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html#ixzz3FPFmXhRy
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

There was open water at the north pole in 1962... a navy sub surfaced and there are pictures.

The poles have also spent the vast majority of earths history unfrozen... we're technically still in a glacial period.

What temperature is it supposed to be?

There's a reason that the abyss is interesting and certainly is a variable in a wide range of interactions. Recently there've been advances in the theories and understanding of the ocean as a carbon sink. Hell water in our atmosphere is worse than carbon.

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V17/N30/EDIT.php

Climate-Change-Induced Flooding Volume 17, Number 30: 23 July 2014

More frequent and more devastating floods are both (1) predicted for the future and (2) claimed to already be occurring by a host of climate alarmists, as a result of climate change that they claim is induced by anthropogenic CO2 emissions. But are these claims correct?

In a massive review of the subject conducted by a team of seventeen researchers hailing from eleven different countries, i.e., Kundzewicz et al. (2013), we learn the following: (1) "no gauge-based evidence has been found for a climate-driven, globally widespread change in the magnitude/frequency of floods during the last decades," (2) "there is low confidence in projections of changes in fluvial floods, due to limited evidence and because the causes of regional changes are complex," (3) "considerable uncertainty remains in the projections of changes in flood magnitude and frequency," (4) increases in global flood disaster losses reported over the last few decades "may be attributed to improvements in reporting, population increase and urbanization in flood-prone areas, increase of property value and degraded awareness about natural risks (due to less natural lifestyle)," (5) "the linkages between enhanced greenhouse forcing and flood phenomena are highly complex and, up to the present, it has not been possible to describe the connections well, either by empirical analysis or by the use of models," and (6) "the problem of flood losses is mostly about what we do on or to the landscape," which they say "will be the case for decades to come."

In closing, Kundzewicz et al. write that "the climate change issue is very important to flooding, but we have low confidence about the science," adding that "work towards improvements in GCMs [global climate models] to bring us to a point where all of this is made clear is much needed, and may take much time." And they thoughtfully remind us - in the interim - that "although media reports of both floods and global flood damage are on the increase, there is still no Mauna-Loa-like record (see Vorosmarty, 2002) that shows a global increase in flood frequency or magnitude."

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBxCY9HfGZ0

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:I won’t argue the merits for or against the climate change argument. What I want to know is why it has become more of a political movement than anything else, and what climate change proponents are going to do with political power once it is handed to them. What kind of controls will they place upon humanity, and how will they do it?

It seems to me they want to ban fossil fuels completely, and do it sooner than later. If they manage to accomplish this, how will the human population obtain its food, among other things? Modern farming has very deep needs for petroleum products, for instance. I could see climate change fanatics banning tractors because they burn diesel, which contributes CO2 to the atmosphere. They could make farmers revert to animal traction, and make the population live with the vastly reduced farm production that would result from this. But oxen make a lot of “cow farts,” contributing methane (a notorious GHG) to the atmosphere. Would we then just ban food production to save the Earth?

Remember what stalin did to the ukrainians? Who's heartless now... no matter the noble populist intent?

Yep Stalin and the Kulaks .... Wipes them out

Look it's very simple. If you're a democrat you believe in global warming and if you're a republican you don't.
That's why all of you have IQ's higher than toasters.