Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...
just sayin

Quitman, GA

#25718 Sep 28, 2013
Oh my wrote:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad _astronomy/2013/09/26/climate_ change_denial_james_delingpole _tells_it_like_it_isn_t.html
...And finally, no, the models aren’t “bunk”. In fact the models are doing a pretty good job of representing the physical nature of what’s going on. The real problem isn’t with the models, it’s with people interpreting them, or, more accurately, misinterpreting them. Again, I’ll cover this below.
Delingpole continues:
This is why the latest Assessment Report is proving such a headache to the IPCC. It’s the first in its history to admit what its critics have said for years: global warming did “pause” unexpectedly in 1998 and shows no sign of resuming. And, other than an ad hoc new theory about the missing heat having been absorbed by the deep ocean, it cannot come up with a convincing explanation why.
Well, actually, no. That’s like seeing a corpse with a bullet wound to the head and saying “Except for the bullet wound to the head you cannot come up with a convincing explanation why this person is dead.”
The idea that the missing heat is being absorbed by the deep ocean is hardly ad hoc. It’s observed. And it’s hardly “new”; we’ve known the deep ocean has been heating up for a while. This is also happening at the same time that we’re seeing relatively cooler surface temperatures in the Pacific ocean, which cools the air. That’s part of a natural cycle, with ocean surface temperatures going up and down over time. For the moment, that effect is greater than the overall warming trend of surface temperatures, so we see a flattening. And despite Delingpole simply dismissing this idea, recent computer models which incorporate the cooler Pacific waters have been able to reproduce this temperature flattening effect pretty well, too (shown in the inset graph), strengthening our understand of how the ocean affects land surface temperatures.
When we cycle back into warmer surface temperatures, the land surface temperature will go back up. We’ve seen this happen before, over and again in the past. You have to be careful not to make any long-term claims about that either; scientists are careful to average over both cooler and warmer cycles to look at the overall trend. Denialists love short-term trends, because they can cherry-pick them to make it look like temperatures are stable or even dropping, when in reality the overall trend is up, up, up.
So the computer models aren’t “bunk”, as Delingpole claims. They’re pretty good, and our best bet for figuring out what’s going on. They get better at doing so over time, too.
The models? The Models? Are these models produced by the same pin heads that produce the tropical storm models? Yeah pretty much they are. Ever seen these? The only point ever in agreement is the static, from there all bets are off.
You seem to have no understanding that "man made" climate change is a theory and one that has all those who find fault with the science and/or the conclusions are silenced and vilified.
I thought scientists were, by nature inquisitive and willing to look at all evidence. Perhaps that's my Pollyanna understanding of science. It appears that the agenda is more important that real science. But that's what happens when economists rather than scientists are given grants to produce specific results.

Judged:

12

10

6

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jul 12

Douglasville, GA

#25719 Sep 28, 2013
please hurry wrote:
<quoted text>
You are proof that common sense is not so common. So start your much dreamed about conservative party, heck you can even call it the tea party!! Then watch as what little influence your group has evaporates. That's when we get back to governing this country and personal agendas of a few no longer matter, so please hurry.
Talk about personal agendas. You think that Obama , Biden, Reed, Clinton, and Pelosi do not have a personal agenda to move this country towards a European style Socialist country? If you don't there is something wrong with your thought pattern. I think we all know the answer to that.
Btw I have no group to watch evaporate. None exist at this time that has any power to do anything. I don't call them anything because of now there is only one party disguised as two parties and neither of them are helping hard working Americans or this country.
I am sure if a new party tries to get a foothold, the Obama Administration will stop them by using the IRS again.
Yes of this moment, all I and many other Americans can do is dream of a new honest conservative third party to try and save this country from destruction.

Since: Jul 12

Douglasville, GA

#25720 Sep 28, 2013
I think I know where the hot air is coming from that makes some people believe in global warming or climate change. The hot air is from the United Nations trying to deceive us about climate change. Seems that they just ignore the truth as it does not fit their agenda.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/...
silver foxx

Moultrie, GA

#25721 Sep 28, 2013
For all the left leaning, socialist idiots out there living in Utopialand.

http://touch.latimes.com/#story/la-na-shutdow...
I saw it

Adel, GA

#25722 Sep 28, 2013
Bigdave1 wrote:
I think I know where the hot air is coming from that makes some people believe in global warming or climate change. The hot air is from the United Nations trying to deceive us about climate change. Seems that they just ignore the truth as it does not fit their agenda.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/...
Its strange to me that a person so wrong can even imagine the are right. Everyone is lying to you, and you sitting here in Georgia not mattering at all in the big pictures think you have all the answers. I just can't understand how you are being missed, you are such a find and a wonderful intellect.

Just a little hint, scientists don't look at short term trends, it's the long term that matters when it concerns climate change. 15 years in the history of man is a blink of the eye. You blinked, I saw it>

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#25723 Sep 28, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice try, but you missed by a mile.
It doesn't scare me one bit, whether you call it the Tea Party, the Libertarian Party, the American Independent Party, or the John Birch party nothing is stopping anyone from forming a 3rd, 4th, or 5th political party.
Riddle me this,
if the Tea Party is such a threat to the Democrats or the Republicans, then why didn't they form their own party back in 2009. Nothing forced the Tea Party to run under the wing of the Republicans, that was a choice they made, and it was choice that Republicans made to court the extreme right.
By the way, teabagger was what they called themselves in the beginning until the yahoos realized what the term's sexual conotations were.
The Tea Party didn't "choose to run" under the wing of the Republican Party, the vast majority of those who identify as Tea Party are conservative Republicans who are trying to bring the party back to the conservative agenda that this country needs. They are tired of the Republican establishment who seem content to let Democrats ruin this country as long as they get their little perks.

I am certainly not embarrassed that the Tea Party was unaware of the vulgar connotation that the Left was so quick to pick up on.

Since: Jul 12

Douglasville, GA

#25724 Sep 28, 2013
I saw it wrote:
<quoted text>
Its strange to me that a person so wrong can even imagine the are right. Everyone is lying to you, and you sitting here in Georgia not mattering at all in the big pictures think you have all the answers. I just can't understand how you are being missed, you are such a find and a wonderful intellect.
Just a little hint, scientists don't look at short term trends, it's the long term that matters when it concerns climate change. 15 years in the history of man is a blink of the eye. You blinked, I saw it>
How do you know I am wrong? Just because you say so? Maybe because Al Gore says so. There is no proof of what you are asserting and never has been. You read too much Huffington Post.
When are you going to start thinking and figuring things out for yourself? I suspect never.
Now

Jefferson, GA

#25725 Sep 28, 2013

It’s all about the money folks, who gets it and who gives it.
Infinitesimal climate change over a 132 year period only infects the brains of those who are greedy for someone else’s money.

2013 Working Group 1 report here…..the final report will be Monday Sept 30th.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploa ...

The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a
linear trend, show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06]°C over the period 1880–2012, when
multiple independently produced datasets exist.

The total increase between the average of the
1850–1900 period and the 2003–2012 period is 0.78 [0.72 to 0.85]°C, based on the single
longest dataset available””

For the first set of years, 1880-2012
.65 C = 33.17 degree
1.06 c = 33.908 The 2 numbers above produce a temperature rise of .85c or .738 degree, less than 1 degree temperature change over the period 1880-2012, which is a total of 132 years.

The Ice age was appox 10,000 years ago and it has taken that long to melt most of the ice (Glaciers), which shows the Earth is in a normal warming cycle.

The second set of numbers for years 1850-1900 and 2003-2012
.72c = 33.296 degrees
.85c = 33.53 degrees

The 2 numbers above produce a temperature rise of 13c or .234 degree, less than one quarter of 1 degree temperature change over the periods of 1850-1900 and 2003-2012 which is a total of 69 years.



132 years and only less than a 1 degree increase in warming, The numbers come from the IPPC and show the hysteria put out by the greenies and the Gores and the socialists are nothing but hyperbole.

The whole report is much ado about little, especially when the weather is not determined by man, computer models, or carbon credits.

Mother Nature will have her way, regardless of insignificant foolish man.
Now

Jefferson, GA

#25726 Sep 28, 2013
Temperatures and heat have only accumalted sonce around 1850, specifically less then 1 degree per this years IPPC report.

"The Little Ice Age, following the historically warm temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period, which lasted from about AD 950 to 1250, has been attributed to natural cycles in solar activity, particularly sunspots. A period of sharply lower sunspot activity known as the Wolf Minimum began in 1280 and persisted for 70 years until 1350. That was followed by a period of even lower sunspot activity that lasted 90 years from 1460 to 1550 known as the Sporer Minimum. During the period 1645 to 1715, the low point of the Little Ice Age, the number of sunspots declined to zero for the entire time. This is known as the Maunder Minimum, named after English astronomer Walter Maunder. That was followed by the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830, another period of well below normal sunspot activity."

"The increase in global temperatures since the late 19th century just reflects the end of the Little Ice Age. The global temperature trends since then have followed not rising CO2 trends but the ocean temperature cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Every 20 to 30 years, the much colder water near the bottom of the oceans cycles up to the top, where it has a slight cooling effect on global temperatures until the sun warms that water. That warmed water then contributes to slightly warmer global temperatures, until the next churning cycle."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013...


Now

Jefferson, GA

#25727 Sep 28, 2013
OMTE wrote:
How bout them Dawgs!!!!:))))
WOOF WOOF!!!!!
corso

Cordele, GA

#25728 Sep 29, 2013
Now wrote:
<quoted text>
WOOF WOOF!!!!!
how did you know he was talking about your ugly ass!!!!
Polemics

Douglasville, GA

#25729 Sep 29, 2013
Bigdave1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Talk about personal agendas. You think that Obama , Biden, Reed, Clinton, and Pelosi do not have a personal agenda to move this country towards a European style Socialist country? If you don't there is something wrong with your thought pattern.
.
Of course we know that. Why do you think we love them so dummy.

“Registered Conservative”

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#25730 Sep 29, 2013
Polemics wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course we know that. Why do you think we love them so dummy.
Because you don't know any better.
Now

Jefferson, GA

#25731 Sep 29, 2013
corso wrote:
<quoted text>how did you know he was talking about your ugly ass!!!!

jeb,
as far as most posters are concerned, you are anathema in this thread. You have exhibted your true self, and most folks dont like you, care for your language, or will waste their time on you anymore.

Go play with yourself, as that is the only thing you seem to care about..
OMTE

Folkston, GA

#25732 Sep 29, 2013
It was hilarious to watch all those Obama worshipers show there butts lastnight on C-span.:)
They really showed there true colors.(IMO) I thought Rep. David Scott of 13th district of Ga; was goin to fall out on the ground and start kickin and screamin. LoL. It was great. They are all for democracy, unless they are out voted by the majority. It's very telling.:) My Rep. Austin Scott and Rep. Jack Kingston done a great job at standing up for our military. Obama wanted to hold our military's pay hostage as a political ploy. The House did a fine job lastnight to stop him from doing that. Bravo! Way to go House of Representatives! Stand your ground, the American people are behind you! Hear! Hear!

Judged:

12

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
OMTE

Folkston, GA

#25733 Sep 29, 2013
I thought it was interesting that 17 democrats joined the Republicans, to repeal the medical device tax. Good for them. :)))

Judged:

12

10

7

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Now

Jefferson, GA

#25734 Sep 29, 2013
So how do you get the result you want????

Why, just rig the computer models to support your viewpoint.....and pay no attention to any observed trend that show the numbers are less than the computer models....
For libroids; it's not the evidence from mother nature that's important, it's whatever man decides that is important, just ask Gore.


"John Christy, a distinguished climate scientist and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) found that all 73 computer model runs performed by the IPCC as of June 1, 2013 overshoot the observed warming of the tropical atmosphere during the previous 34 years.
Even though global carbon dioxide emissions are increasing largely due to India and China, "the temperatures recorded by the NASA-supported Remote Sensing Systems shows no warming in the earth’s middle atmosphere, or troposphere, over the past 16-plus years."
German climatologist Hans von Storch has found that IPCC climate models project warming trends as low as actual recorded observations only 2% of the time.
The monthly journal Nature Climate Change reports that over 20 years (1993-2012), the warming trend computed from 117 climate model simulations (0.3°C per decade) is more than twice the observed trend (0.14°C/decade). Over the most recent 15 years (1998-2012), the computer-simulated trend (0.21°C/decade) is more than four times the observed trend (0.05°C/decade)—a trend that is pretty close to a flat line."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/...
Now

Jefferson, GA

#25735 Sep 29, 2013

"The IPCC also asserts that a "thermal hot spot should exist in the upper troposphere in tropical regions" even though "observations from both weather balloon radiosondes and satellite MSU sensors show the opposite." Furthermore, the IPCC also asserts that "both polar regions should have warmed faster than the rest of Earth during the late twentieth century" when, in fact, "the large polar East Antarctic Ice Sheet has been cooling since at least the 1950s.""

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/...

Now

Jefferson, GA

#25736 Sep 29, 2013
So here is the report by NON-GOVERNMENT scientists, who have no personal livihood dependent upon tax payers dollars........nor personal bias...

"The high regard that the IPCC claims for itself is undeserved. Numerous writers have documented the strong bias of its founders and principals, its determination to find a human role in climate change almost without regard to what the data show, and the corrupting role that politics has played in the organization’s history.** These writers observe what should be obvious but is rarely noted by environmental reporters and advocates: The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific organization. Its purpose is to make a case for regulating carbon dioxide as though it were a dangerous pollutant. Its reports are edited and revised by government officials, not scientists, to “fit” their political agendas.

In 2013, discussion about abolishing the IPCC was widespread. The organization has done more to politicize and corrupt climate science than to advance it.*** Its views on climate were never as independent or authoritative as it claimed, and should never have become the basis for global policy."


http://climatechangereconsidered.org/about-ni...



opinion

Adel, GA

#25737 Sep 29, 2013
Bigdave1 wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know I am wrong? Just because you say so? Maybe because Al Gore says so. There is no proof of what you are asserting and never has been. You read too much Huffington Post.
When are you going to start thinking and figuring things out for yourself? I suspect never.
Screw Al Gore, the vast majority of scientists in the world agree on climate change. Take a walk on the wild side, stray from your patterns. Watch FNC if you must but also watch main stream media, you know the old fashion news presented without any opinion at all.
I watch FNC, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS and PBS to get a better handle on what's really happening in the world, try it. You will be amazed at how much better you will sleep when you discover most of what you worry about is blown way out of proportion. Some is just a a distortion of the truth, but a lot is nothing more than some talking heads opinion.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Brunswick Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
want to buy 40 - 200 acres of land near darien May 9 retired 1
Beware. Apr 30 jbk 4
Speed Trap along the I-95 corridor in Mcintosh ... (Nov '15) Apr 24 kjackie 66
Jekyll Island Music Thread (Nov '14) Apr '18 Musikologist 6
Mr. Burch Apr '18 kywife17 1
Drug problem Mar '18 Nonya 1
anyone know tony klatt and his girlfriend Mary... (Mar '09) Feb '18 Judy 18

Brunswick Jobs

Personal Finance

Brunswick Mortgages