Search results

Are you hoping for that glacial ice sheet over NYC?

Spare me your sanctimonious lectures. When this was directed to me, I'm sure you jumped up and down with jubilant glee. "If there is a rabid monkey throwing poo in the kitchen it's not a bad idea to stay out."

Think you are a tad bit hyperbolic to claim that if it was up to me, we would burn every drop of oil on the planet. We will be way more technologically advanced than what we are now well before that ever happens. Texas already generates 20-25% of its electricity from wind.

As Dr. Spencer already told us, the amount is so tiny our instruments can't even measure it.

And I have been trying to tell you over and over that the reduction is minor.

The graph you presented was not global. That's why!

Other than geological activity, all of the energy comes from the sun. The ocean and atmosphere reacts to the solar energy in a complex way. Attributing a temperature change to one parameter is extremely short-sighted.

Which basin is that from?

That is one tropical cyclone.

Here is data of all hurricane strength tropical cyclones globally since the early 1970s. http://climatlas.com/tropical/global_major_freq.png I think you global warming fanatics are shocked by this data. All of you have been programmed by the new age religion (human-caused global warming)...

If there is a global warming worshipping fanatic running around like a chicken with its head cut off screaming, "the ice is melting, the ice is melting, and we're all gonna drown, aahhhhhhh!!!" It's not a bad idea to stay out.

You mentioned hurricanes? OK, let's have a look: http://climatlas.com/tropical/frequency_12months.png http://climatlas.com/tropical/global_running_ace.png Since the early 1970s, there is no trend of increasing tropical cyclone activity across the world - both numerically and in tropical...

The CO2 effect is negligible.

You have no clue that is all human-caused.

What CO2 did 10,000 years ago is negligible.

You are a perfect example of, "if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen."

There is by far more than CO2 that is involved!

That stupid ass 97% figure came from this guy, John Cook. Complete delusional nonsense! http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

Are you trying to make the point that the human species will cause the sea level to rise 200 feet?

What kind of problems are you talking about? 1/2 foot sea level rise per century?

You left a few variables out of you previous equation.

Not to the point of boiling us alive like you silly global warming worshippers think.

Flat out lie on your part!

Your limited math.

You think that will keep going up to infinity?

Wrong, the CO2 correlation doesn't always fit on the paleoclimate time scale.

Shut the sun off, IR radiation will be all gone.

Arctic temperatures are running right along the 1958-2002 mean. Doesn't appear the Arctic ice will melt away to oblivion like you global warming zealots hope. http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

Because those dots require a tremendous amount of tunnel vision.

Do you think the almighty CO2 molecule will do something like that? Is that what you think?

Does that mean climate catastrophe?

That is something one has to look up and research. I don't have the exact distances of perihelion and aphelion in my head. But those distances are affected plus the variation of the tilted axis with respect to the orbital plane around the sun.

The oceans were warming. They appear to be starting a cooling trend now.

Getting a little closer to the sun, something on the order of 94,000,000 miles to 92,000,000 miles.

1. Nothing. 2. The Goldilocks or Habitable Zone - the earth's optimal distance from the sun 3. Different scientists come up with different estimates of CO2 induced flux. Your numbers are in the ballpark. Spencer's is something like that.

CO2 follows temperature, not lead it. Right now the Milankovitch Cycles is a strong theory why we have 100,000 year glacial periods.

You bought that stupid-ass John Cook Skeptical Science Crap? Allow me to present to you where that 97% bullcrap study came from. http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

I already told you that you are making a mountain out of the "non-condensable (condensible as you say) GHG" molehill. CO2 is a minor GHG.

If you think all scientists and engineers are singing from the same human-caused global warming hymn, you are flat-out wrong!

GHG have very little to no affect on the glacial or interglacial periods.

Because life flourished on earth with much higher CO2 concentration than now. If there was a runaway positive feedback event in the past like you are fearmongering about today, we would have already burnt to a crisp. Negative feedbacks prevent that from happening.

Did I thank you for anything?

You have your head fixed on land. You are forgetting most of the earth's surface is ocean. There is not a one to one correspondence between short-wave radiation coming into the ocean vs. long-wave radiation going out. Less clouds warms the oceans, which in turn warms the earth.

What point still stands?

The Northeastern US is colder in the winter than the Northwestern US because mid-latitude weather systems move from west to east. Frontal systems bring Continental Polar air across the Northeast, which is substantially colder than the Maritime Polar air frontal system bring to the Pac Northwest.

We have very little CO2 in the atmosphere based on the paleoclimate time scale.

How did you shoot clouds to hell? That was utter nonsense.

Well now, that is yet another parameter thrown into the climate mix - orbital variations.

That is the incomplete combustion and aerosols that stink.

It is perpetually cool in Seattle because of the excessive cloud cover and the cold equatorward moving ocean currents along the West Coast. It gets warm when a high pressure system builds over the Pac NW, giving you a temporary break from the cloud cover. I am sure Seattle also gets down...