Climate change: February was hottest month on record as 'exceptional' Nasa shows

Yet they have yet to get ENSO correct. Now, where do you think that heat goes?

 

You were the one that brought up spring snow in the Caribbean as if it disproved global warming, then you say that reduced volcanic activity caused the shift of cold air from the arctic responsible for that snow. Do you see the inconsistency here?

If you look at the fossil record, you will see that rapid climate changes have not been kind to most species. While I agree that life will go on with a warmer Earth, I would like humans to be one of the species that survives.

http://theconversation.com/mass-ext...peed-of-rising-greenhouse-gases-matters-56675

 

funny how the poles are left out.

 

Rapid would be like the Younger Dryas event. Nothing like that is happening. In fact, man has done much better during the warmer periods of the Holocene.

 

Can humans survive in Hawaii?

The tropics don't get hotter in warm earth conditions the warm bands simply widen. Put another way, the cold areas simply shrink.It's not going to happen though, the current continental configuration prevents the oceans from properly spreading tropical warm water to the poles and allows cold polar water to isolate.

So this damn cold continues. I'll never see warm earth conditions, none of us will. Have fun with your scary stories though. But don't study the fossil record and don't study continental configurations effect on warmth circulated by the oceans, it will ruin your myths and you seem to really enjoy them.

Enjoyment is good!

 

The change in continental drift is theorized to be the reason we have been in a 2.5 million year glacial period. The oceans do convey warm water to the poles (especially the Arctic) and that warmth is then transmitted to space. There is a line of convergence around 40 degrees where it changes from warming to cooling so yes, the hypothesis is that that would move further north. I think it was the Younger Dryas event where it changed something like 18C in a few decades in the northern latitudes but took something like 400 years to show it's effects on tropical islands.

 

And also the antarctic moving south and separating from the other landmasses allows very cool water to circulate. Then with the joining of North and South America there is a wall from the tip of South America to Alaska. So tropical warmth doesn't circulate to the poles properly and we have an extreme difference between the temperatures at the equator and the poles. So, I don't think we are going to be returning to warm earth conditions anytime soon. The ice age will continue and hopefully without glacial advances.

 

Climate Change Scam: A Brief Recap

 

Zorro, don't post faked predictions and then pretend scientists made those predictions.

Yes, I know that such propaganda is all your cult has, but that's not an excuse to peddle it. You should be trying to convince the world deniers aren't frauds, instead of reinforcing the denier reputation for being pseudoscience-spouting charlatans.

 

Some of those 'fake' scientists contributed to the IPCC. Are you saying the IPCC is fake?

 

Prove it. You won't . Lol

 

Your lack of knowledge is not my concern but thanks for showing how little you know.

 

And your lack of knowledge is not my concern. Lol

 

Specifically lead authors Santer and Mann. And there is a reason that the Summary for Policy Makers is released months before the scientific working group reports. Santer and Mann's job was to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period so that the higher temperature blade of the hockey stick would correspond directly to the increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 without the inconvenience of having to explain the warmer temperatures of 1000 years ago with lower and stable concentrations of CO2. And they dishonestly did it. Remember that the charter of the IPCC is not to understand climate change but to promote global warming resulting from the increased levels of atmospheric CO2. The charter is not to disprove the AGW theory (which is the scientific method) but to provide "evidence" that the AGW theory is correct. That's bass ackwards but they again are getting away with it by convincing those unfamiliar with how uncorrupted science actually works.

 

Let's see what the IPCC charter actually says.

Nope, nothing about promoting AGW there.

 

The IPCC was created by government for one purpose, to support the preconceived notion that CO2 drove climate, thus; that is all they promote.

 

It's right in front of you:

The charter is not to understand climate change in total. How can the effects of climate change resulting from human action be differentiated when climate change in total is not first understood.

 

information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation
dude, can you read?

 

That is like saying the America Cancer Society is promoting the myth of cancer treatment by promoting cancer research. LOL

 

Still more logical fallacies. You can't seem to stay on topic. What a joke.

 

You still got nothing....huh? LOL

 

This is the extent of your knowledge, that and logical fallacies. Now, explain the ancient forests uncovered by melting glaciers. Bad news eh, AGW was hear long before you became frightened by media noise.

http://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html

 

That's a logical fallacy. LOL (Actually it is!)

 

Actually, it is all you ever present so it is the truth. Also, you ignore actual observed science as presented but that is to be expected since you are moved more by fear and your new religion than science.

 

Another logical fallacy.