global waring fail - GoFuckYourself.com

Grapesoda · 04-02-2015, 07:43 AM

2013 Was Not A Good Year For Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Climate Warming Change Disruption Weirding Ocean Acidification Extreme Weather, etc. | Watts Up With That?

For anyone keeping track, 2013 has not been a good year for those who propagate the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) Narrative, also know by a litany of increasingly nebulous buzzwords including ?Climate Change?, ?Climate Disruption??, ?Global Weirding?, ?Ocean Acidification?, and ?Extreme Weather?. Regardless of efforts to nebulize CAGW to explain all forms of climatic and weather variation, in 2013 every loosely falsifiable prediction of the CAGW narrative seems to have failed

Global Temperatures through November 2013 had not increased for between 8 years and 11 months to 17 years and 3 months. depending on data set and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) reached 17 years in October, 2013:

?The volume of ice measured this autumn is about 50% higher compared to last year.

In October 2013, CryoSat measured about 9000 cubic km of sea ice ? a notable increase compared to 6000 cubic km in October 2012.?

?About 90% of the increase is due to growth of multiyear ice ? which survives through more than one summer without melting ? with only 10% growth of first year ice. Thick, multiyear ice indicates healthy Arctic sea-ice cover.

This year?s multiyear ice is now on average about 20%, or around 30 cm, thicker than last year. ?

??One of the things we?d noticed in our data was that the volume of ice year-to-year was not varying anything like as much as the ice extent ? at least in 2010, 2011 and 2012,? said Rachel Tilling from the UK?s Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, who led the study.

?We didn?t expect the greater ice extent left at the end of this summer?s melt to be reflected in the volume. But it has been, and the reason is related to the amount of multiyear ice in the Arctic.'? European Space Agency

Also, Arctic Sea Ice Extent remained within two standard deviations of the 1981 ? 2010 average for the entirety of 2013;

dyna mo · 04-02-2015, 07:48 AM

it gets worse for the tree-huggers::::

A new study out of Germany casts further doubt on the global warming “consensus” by suggesting the atmosphere may be less sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide emissions than most scientists think.

A study by scientists at Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Meteorology found that man-made aerosols had a much smaller cooling effect on the atmosphere during the 20th Century than was previously thought. Why is this big news? It means increases in carbon dioxide emissions likely cause less warming than most climate models suggest.

research

Harmon · 04-02-2015, 07:50 AM

Why is it that I think you and Brassmonkey are one in the same?

At the very least you must share an apartment together and meet every evening at the dinner table and discuss which news stories you should post over a box of Kraft Macaroni & Cheese with a side of Kool Aid.

arock10 · 04-02-2015, 07:57 AM

bad year for basic spelling too

Harmon · 04-02-2015, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arock10

bad year for basic spelling too

[ Nate ] · 04-02-2015, 08:00 AM

Title fail

dyna mo · 04-02-2015, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arock10

bad year for basic spelling too

although a global warring fail would be a good thing!

aka123 · 04-02-2015, 08:07 AM

As you describe it negatively (fail), you are disappointed that your efforts to warm Earth have been gone to waste?

If true, this would be good news, although this would only be small good news, as it doesn't solve the problem, only lessens it/ gives time. Also, there was just recently some Nasa stats about warming that says exactly otherwise.

Not warmed in where and when? Your "me speak English" isn't that good. What the fuck this means in English? Who measured, what, where and when? Why so strange data range? How about using full calendar years?

"Global Temperatures through November 2013 had not increased for between 8 years and 11 months to 17 years and 3 months."

crockett · 04-02-2015, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harmon

Why is it that I think you and Brassmonkey are one in the same?

At the very least you must share an apartment together and meet every evening at the dinner table and discuss which news stories you should post over a box of Kraft Macaroni & Cheese with a side of Kool Aid.

It's the right wing drone mindset. They all think alike, because they are all brainwashed with the same few news sources. There is no independent thought outside of the borg as that would be too liberal.

dyna mo · 04-02-2015, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

It's the right wing drone mindset. They all think alike, because they are all brainwashed with the same few news sources. There is no independent thought outside of the borg as that would be too liberal.

you state that as if the left wing has independent thought.

fyi, you don't/\

PR_Glen · 04-02-2015, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

It's the right wing drone mindset. They all think alike, because they are all brainwashed with the same few news sources. There is no independent thought outside of the borg as that would be too liberal.

even the environment is a partisan issue for you? You are unbelievable...

crockett · 04-02-2015, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PR_Glen

even the environment is a partisan issue for you? You are unbelievable...

It's very obvious the environment is a partisan issue when you have people whom think it's acceptable to dump coal ash in rivers or build oil pipe lines next to water sources. Sadly yes it's become a partisan issue when one side of the govt routinely seems to enjoy destroying the environment and believes they have no responsibility to stop doing so and people like you vote for them to continue doing so.

crockett · 04-02-2015, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

you state that as if the left wing has independent thought.

fyi, you don't/\

Of course not as I'm not a member of the right wing hive mind so I must not compute in your world.

dyna mo · 04-02-2015, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

It's very obvious the environment is a partisan issue when you have people whom think it's acceptable to dump coal ash in rivers or build oil pipe lines next to water sources. Sadly yes it become a partisan issue when one side of the govt routinely seems to enjoy destroying the environment and believes they have no responsibility to stop doing so.

you're the one buying into that. no need to try and sell the rest of us on making curbing pollution a partisan issue. the science is settled, i don't need to claim affiliation to libtards in order to not pollute.

crockett · 04-02-2015, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

you're the one buying into that. no need to try and sell the rest of us on making curbing pollution a partisan issue. the science is settled, i don't need to claim affiliation to libtards in order to not pollute.

I'm pretty sure the science is very settled that oil and water do make very good drinking water. Much the same as water mixed with coal ash..

See you are so narrow minded in your thinking about the enviorment, that you think everything is about global watming.. however the right is at war with the EPA and routinely tried to push legislation which undoes protections set in place for the enviorient.

Yes the right is very much at war with the environment and it's not just about global warming.

Grapesoda · 04-02-2015, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by [ Nate ]

Title fail

dyna mo · 04-02-2015, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

I'm pretty sure the science is very settled that oil and water do make very good drinking water. Much the same as water mixed with coal ash..

See you are so narrow minded in your thinking about the enviorment, that you think everything is about global watming.. however the right is at war with the EPA and routinely tried to push legislation which undoes protections set in place for the enviorient.

Yes the right is very much at war with the environment and it's not just about global warming.

reread what i wrote. i specifically chose the word "pollution" over the phrase "global warming". there's a reason i did that.

Harmon · 04-02-2015, 09:14 AM

OP is either riding on the coat tails of BrassDonkey or he is the same person. The amount of news here is, I guess, something to talk about seeing as the board isn't what it used to be... but shit, come up with some fresh shit.

Copy, paste, copy, paste... it's fucking old. At least add something to the conversation instead of posting and moving onto your next new post which is more or less the exact same thing.

Grow the fuck up and have some individuality.

04-02-2015, 07:43 AM	#1
Grapesoda So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Montana Posts: 46,238	global waring fail 2013 Was Not A Good Year For Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Climate Warming Change Disruption Weirding Ocean Acidification Extreme Weather, etc. \| Watts Up With That? For anyone keeping track, 2013 has not been a good year for those who propagate the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) Narrative, also know by a litany of increasingly nebulous buzzwords including ?Climate Change?, ?Climate Disruption??, ?Global Weirding?, ?Ocean Acidification?, and ?Extreme Weather?. Regardless of efforts to nebulize CAGW to explain all forms of climatic and weather variation, in 2013 every loosely falsifiable prediction of the CAGW narrative seems to have failed Global Temperatures through November 2013 had not increased for between 8 years and 11 months to 17 years and 3 months. depending on data set and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) reached 17 years in October, 2013: ?The volume of ice measured this autumn is about 50% higher compared to last year. In October 2013, CryoSat measured about 9000 cubic km of sea ice ? a notable increase compared to 6000 cubic km in October 2012.? ?About 90% of the increase is due to growth of multiyear ice ? which survives through more than one summer without melting ? with only 10% growth of first year ice. Thick, multiyear ice indicates healthy Arctic sea-ice cover. This year?s multiyear ice is now on average about 20%, or around 30 cm, thicker than last year. ? ??One of the things we?d noticed in our data was that the volume of ice year-to-year was not varying anything like as much as the ice extent ? at least in 2010, 2011 and 2012,? said Rachel Tilling from the UK?s Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, who led the study. ?We didn?t expect the greater ice extent left at the end of this summer?s melt to be reflected in the volume. But it has been, and the reason is related to the amount of multiyear ice in the Arctic.'? European Space Agency Also, Arctic Sea Ice Extent remained within two standard deviations of the 1981 ? 2010 average for the entirety of 2013;

04-02-2015, 07:50 AM	#3
Harmon ( ͡ʘ╭͜ʖ╮͡ʘ) Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 20,000	Why is it that I think you and Brassmonkey are one in the same? At the very least you must share an apartment together and meet every evening at the dinner table and discuss which news stories you should post over a box of Kraft Macaroni & Cheese with a side of Kool Aid. __________________ [email protected]

04-02-2015, 07:57 AM	#4
arock10 Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,218	bad year for basic spelling too __________________ Sup

04-02-2015, 08:00 AM	#6
[ Nate ] Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Asia Posts: 1,468	Title fail __________________ Ladyboy Inc. / Asian Money Machine

04-02-2015, 08:07 AM	#8
aka123 Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2014 Location: 64 00 N, 26 00 E Posts: 4,450	As you describe it negatively (fail), you are disappointed that your efforts to warm Earth have been gone to waste? If true, this would be good news, although this would only be small good news, as it doesn't solve the problem, only lessens it/ gives time. Also, there was just recently some Nasa stats about warming that says exactly otherwise. Not warmed in where and when? Your "me speak English" isn't that good. What the fuck this means in English? Who measured, what, where and when? Why so strange data range? How about using full calendar years? "Global Temperatures through November 2013 had not increased for between 8 years and 11 months to 17 years and 3 months." __________________

04-02-2015, 07:48 AM	#2
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 63,914	it gets worse for the tree-huggers:::: A new study out of Germany casts further doubt on the global warming “consensus” by suggesting the atmosphere may be less sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide emissions than most scientists think. A study by scientists at Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Meteorology found that man-made aerosols had a much smaller cooling effect on the atmosphere during the 20th Century than was previously thought. Why is this big news? It means increases in carbon dioxide emissions likely cause less warming than most climate models suggest. research

04-02-2015, 09:14 AM	#18
Harmon ( ͡ʘ╭͜ʖ╮͡ʘ) Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 20,000	OP is either riding on the coat tails of BrassDonkey or he is the same person. The amount of news here is, I guess, something to talk about seeing as the board isn't what it used to be... but shit, come up with some fresh shit. Copy, paste, copy, paste... it's fucking old. At least add something to the conversation instead of posting and moving onto your next new post which is more or less the exact same thing. Grow the fuck up and have some individuality. __________________ [email protected]