Al Gore: ‘Bitter cold’ is ‘exactly what we should expect

You would have to go often and measure it constantly. It has been done, and you are objectively wrong to state there has been no reduction.

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/12/

 

Meanwhile the rest of the Northern Hemisphere and the entire Earth is above average temperature wise. Note, the United States =/= The Whole Earth.

 

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...ws-host-climate-scientists-fabricated-temper/

Either way, Curry has not refuted any of the Federal Report with her own peer reviewed

 

Correct. As my linked source points out:

"The height of the Little Ice Age is generally dated as 1650 to 1850 A.D. The American Revolutionary Army under General George Washington shivered at Valley Forge in the winter of 1777-78, and New York harbor was frozen in the winter of 1780. Historic snowstorms struck Lisbon, Portugal in 1665, 1744 and 1886. Glaciers in Glacier National Park in Montana advanced until the late 18th or early 19th centuries. The last River Thames Frost Fair was held in 1814. The Little Ice Age phased out during the middle to late 19th century."

 

You can always count on Al Gore for accurate information.

 

Sigh, no help for the dogma entrenched.

 

The author of one of those studies,

Ernesto Tejedor Vargas, whose study “Temperature Variability in the Iberian Range Since 1602 Inferred from Tree-ring Records” was featured in both the June Breitbart article and in the current iteration, told Climate Feedback in June that he “would like the author of the No Tricks Zone post to remove my name from the blog since it is not reflecting our research conclusion”. His request went unheeded, and his work reappears in Breitbart’s October post:

The article […] is not a climate-change-denying paper. It is a paleoclimate paper showing, first, a new maximum temperature reconstruction for the last 400 years (including the current warming) and second, a new standardization method in dendrochronology to remove the non-climatic trend. The image in the post does not by any means reflect the message of the paper.

It's okay, you were fooled by a blog.

Feel free to link the study, and quote the portion that states AGW is false.

I'll wait.

 

The flaw in that analysis is to assume that all weather stations are equally important. One station in New York's influence will be modulated by hundreds of other stations in the North East. If some thing is wrong with a single station in New York City it won't have much of an effect.

However, if the single station in Barrow Alaska which is used to extrapolate the temperature over much if the entire arctic has something wrong with it it will have a huge effect on the global average.

 

There's nothing political about the reasons I don't believe that man is responsible for global warming. I think the idea is utterly retarded. We've had warming and cooling weather patterns for 4 billion years. You know how stupid it looks for you to honestly think that suddenly man is responsible for it when we weren't responsible for it for the last 4 billion years?

 

Everything you just wrote was completely opinion, and furthers my post.

The facts and data say otherwise. Unequivocally. In massive quantities. But you think the opposite because of GED Hannity or whoever you listen to. This is why I'm 100% certain this is a tribal issue.

You think it is false because you are a Republican. Full stop. No ifs ands or buts.

 

I lost some Mt Dew reading that one... Sprayed right outta my damn mouth.

 

Consensus is opinion.

 

What is the hottest decade on record?

 

Hand, I haven't gotten one thing from Fox News concerning global warming. I've posted a link that we're about to be heading into a cooling trend. You might wanna go buy a V8 and keep the pedal to the metal and run every light in your house 24/7 and fart as much as you can.

 

How does someone else's opinion further your post?

Unless of course everything furthers your post, just like global warming BS.

 

Yeah, that isn't how this forum works.

If you make the claim, be prepared to defend it with sources.

To claim you have sources, and then refuse to provide them speaks volumes to the legitimacy of your points.

 

Well, fine, believe what you want.
But the article I cited also linked at least 30 other articles by Ms. Curry or about Ms. Curry seriously questioning her field and the processes. I guess we should just ignore all that because you have your own data.
And she is not the only scientist fed up with the GAME.

 

He doesnt seem to understand english. So what shall i do?

 

So 2017 was cooler than 2016.There you are - global cooling. Proof.

 

So, you suggest they "failed", and yet, the cyclic evaluation is demonstrable, and we have yet to see the durable impact of this decreasing input. Perhaps "by 2014" is a standard that you believe was unreasonable, but frankly, it's difficult to accept that they were "wrong" given the data set manipulation that created so much additional warming from extrapolated data assertions in regions absent actual collection that continue to drive the "warming" in our reporting models. We know that so much of the cooling data was "modified" to reduce the impact of it in the data sets globally. We saw this in Australia, we have seen in in the US data sets, etc. So, we know this, and yet, the insistence is that the data sets are reliable, and worthy of discussion.

Think of it this way, we take pics of the solar surface, it would be like the scientists air brushing in additional spots so as to "reduce" the significance of their absence. It's laughable. So, 2017 is "second warmest", with a 40% chance of their number being right. Again, laughable. Also, it begs a specific expectation that the very second the el nino subsides that global temps immediately follow, which, historically they have not. So, even with the idea that the el nino subsided, it is likely we won't see the full effect of the relaxation on the rest of the global systems. In the interim, we're seeing dramatically more snow, and cold now, which likely also is a result of the relaxation of the el nino.

The question then becomes, why not actually appreciate the science? Why so unable to actually consider the efficacy of the data these studies are now producing?

 

That's what I said - global cooling.

 

Germany leads in renewable energy. We already produce over 40% with wind, water, solar energy. Our industry us far more advanced than yours. Infact we are export worldmaster and not you. Tell me something your country builds. Anything? We live in the 21st century. Germany always stands for hightech. Fossil fuels are actual an insult for us. We moved beyond that

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...almost-all-of-its-power-from-renewable-energy

I cant stand primitivism.

 

And he should take his bathing suit in case he wants to go for a swim and cool off.

 

Oh for F'ks sake.. here. https://www.ann-geophys.net/35/659/2017/angeo-35-659-2017.pdf,

Nurtaev and Nurtaev, 2017

Yndestad and Solheim, 2017

Lüdecke and Weiss, 2017


Ill stop there. You won't read them anyway, so what's the point?

 

Visit Montreux. Nice place. Really old Palm Trees. Great skiing.