sunsettommy

The links I posted are completely based on HADCRUT data.

It is a weak field. Maybe that is why Trump is up that high?

Of course climate changes.It does it all the time. The warming trend from 1978-2000 is almost identical from 1920-1940 and from the late 1800's as well. 1860-1880 LINK 1920-1940 LINK 1978-1998 LINK Since 2001,the warming trend has vanished. LINK "Unnatural" warming trend is not showing up.

It is pitiful that you do not know what role Greenpeace has had in this area. They are one of the groups who attack AGW skeptics on what they say about the climate. They have produced the funding canard in the past against skeptics.Who get a pittance compared to Greenpeace,James Hansen and Al Gore.

It has since then been shown that a large part of the 2007 IPCC report are either not peer reviewed,or published papers or even some are from environmentalists organizations. Yet the Chairman of the IPCC keeps telling us that it is based on peer reviewed science.

The usual undefined and illogical,skeptics are well supported financially pablum. A few million spread over 20 years versus BILLIONS a year for Greenpeace.Or billions a year for the AGW believing scientists.

He he, So they go murder a bunch of people over a single book being burned.A specific copy they never seen and never would have seen it ever.But lets go out and murder a few people over that book they never seen.The book that was in FLORIDA! You photos analogy is phooey! The Quran book that was burned is but one of a half billion in existence. While the family photos would very probably be the only ones in existence.Thus they can not be replaced. Their reaction over a book being burned shows how overly irrational they are.

I find it interesting that ALL the democrats flee the state to avoid a vote.But recall a few Republicans for staying and voting. Somehow forgetting that it is the Democrats who are not being honest with their status as legislators.

I skimmed over this thread. I wonder why you are against people in examining the information?

I chose Both Global Warming AND Climate change. But lets get real here. If I chose Global Warming alone.It is indicative of Climate Change. If I chose Global Cooling alone.It is still indicative of Climate Change Since ANY change means there is Climate Change,thus continually saying Climate Change is unnecessary. Better to just state either Global Warming or Global Cooling. But that is not really accurate either since there has been NO warming trend for the tropics down south according to the satellite data,since 1979. Only the Northern Hemisphere show any significant warming. It get's even less warming when you take the words of Dr.Mann and Dr. Jones as shown at my FORUM. There they write in released e-mails this quote: It is warming in small regions.

I have a long list of links showing the depth of Climategate and other pathetic developments. More update is coming.

You will have to prove that such a disappearance occurred. If you are talking about the West Antarctic shelf you are not being reasonable since a CALVING ice shelf is an indication of expansion. Not only that there is a small section where this commonly reported breaking up is actually normal since there never is any long term build up in that area.Not when you have warmer water rushing right by it all the time.

Bugs wrote this? That is obviously incorrect. It has been warming since the 1850's and even from 1979 as per the satellite data. I wonder if you are confusing the two types of global warming? One that is based on the unverified AGW hypothesis or the one we note based on the shaky temperature data from the late 1800's. I do NOT accept the unverified modeling claims of long into the future warming trends as posted in the IPCC report,that are based on the also unverified AGW hypothesis. But I DO accept the fact that it has been warming over all since the great climate shift of 1977.

He brought up the Arctic,a regional climate setting.

William Ashley wrote at post #12: Did you even look at the link? There are modeling projections starting from year 2030! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! This is not good science at all,since it can not be verified for 30 years! I could just as easily write up a bunch of charts and starting with the year 2100 project that the world will be quickly covered in ice in a 20 year period. This is Jeanne Dixon crap and that is why I laughed out loud. It is open for a short time in some years.There is no trend of it clearing up at all.Most of the shrinkage was from the ATLANTIC side of the Arctic,which is a long way from the "North West Passage" area. What melt are you referring to? Here is a LINK to a presentation that seems to show that actually not much shrinkage has been ongoing since the 1950's.It is being discussed at my forum and soon may have an update on the drift errors that might be cause of some of the shrinkage being overstated. The link found in the first post is a 23 page PDF worth reading since it appears there is an uncorrected satellite drift error is making the ice cover in the Arctic appear smaller that it really is. Since 2003 it has been slightly cooling according to the ARGOS project. Please provide citation for your remarkable claim. The rest of your post I will ignore.

William Ashley at post #4 writes: It has been recovering for two years now and several published "peer reviewed" science papers explained that it was the increased influx of warm north Atlantic water and "unusual winds" that pushed more ice out the Arctic region than usual. Here is a link to examine (I have many more like it at my climate forum): DMI There you can look up temperatures records from 1958 to now,note that the BLUE line is at the freezing level. Here you can see the trend since 2002 in a chart: DMI CHART Boooooooo! What are you talking about?

I chose no because I knew they were long holding data and resisting requests for the release of data.

Was this forum once under vBulletin software?

National Post Lorne Gunter: Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof Posted: October 20, 2008, 10:26 AM by Kelly McParland Lorne Gunter EXCERPT: In early September, I began noticing a string of news stories about scientists rejecting the orthodoxy on global warming. Actually, it was more like a string of guest columns and long letters to the editor since it is hard for skeptical scientists to get published in the cabal of climate journals now controlled by the Great Sanhedrin of the environmental movement. Still, the number of climate change skeptics is growing rapidly. Because a funny thing is happening to global temperatures -- they're going down, not up. On the same day (Sept. 5) that areas of southern Brazil were recording one of their latest winter snowfalls ever and entering what turned out to be their coldest September in a century, THE REST OF IT HERE

From the link: my emphasis Hardly a big surprise since most of the warming and melting is in WEST Antarctica.The article above you posted a was little ambigous.But finally found the quote.That tells us that WEST Antarctica is the main melt area. Meanwhile there has been a 3 year trend of INCREASING sea ice and cooling temperatures.It is already -84 below zero in Vostock.It is not even winter yet! The Sea ice coverage by area is already at a record level for a fall time of the year. That 3 year study is already going out of date. I noticed that you get excited over a 3 year study.But consider 10 years not long enough for a NO warming trend.I see this B.S. a lot in the various forum I have been.It is a bogus argument because there is no defined rule on what or when a trend is considered long enough.

Sent to me by E-mail The Human Factory EXCERPT: All of us humans who inhabit this planet Earth are in fact factories, factories for transforming food into Energy and factories for the production of shit! I am using that word ‘shit’ deliberately in order to bring home to even the most squeamish a fact of life. We transform food into energy and we in turn produce shit – pollution. We are natural polluters. Now there are some among us who would take the moral high ground and call themselves ‘environmentalists’, as if they alone cared for the environment. Do not allow this, my friend, for if you do not care to have your footpaths fouled by dog-shit; if you do not like to have the shores thick with a heavy black oil sludge; if you do not wish to breathe in the bad egg smells emanating from the production of steel; if you do not want to see your rivers clogged with chemicals which kill off the fish; - I could go on – then you my friend, you and I, equally with all the others who do not like pollution, are an Environmentalist. Some people boast that they are Green. It is nothing to boast about because I do not know a single soul who does not prefer clean to dirty. We are all against pollution; we are all Green. However, just as we are human factories, endlessly producing waste products, so every form of Energy production unfortunately produces some sort of pollution. It does not matter too much whether our energy, our electricity is produced by atomic reactions, or by coal-fired furnaces, the result is always the same. In order to get the energy, which we in the Western or Developed World consider to be our right, we inevitably produce some sort of pollution. Just how to cope with these pollutions is something that exercises us human beings mightily. LINK

WIP posted from a link: Sure 10 years is a short trendline. The problem AGW believers has.Is that all the while CO2 goes on up,temperature does not.A growing contradiction to the CO2 hypothesis.James Hansen and Al Gore among others have been talking of a coming soon run away warming trend.NOT HAPPENING AT ALL! That is what is telling us so far There has been NO significant volcanic eruption in the same last 10 years.To promote cooling. The sun has been ruled out by AGW believers. It is stupidly wrong.But not surprising. How come a strong La-Ninya produce the single biggest one year drop in world temperature in 100 + years.Somehow brushing aside the awsome CO2 warm forcing power so quickly and for about a year? But before the strong La-ninya came around a year ago.The temperature trend from 1998 to 2007 was still about zero.1998 still remains the high point in last 10 years. It begs the question.What is preventing the trace gas from warming up the planet.In the last 9+ years?

Thank You Prime Minister!

WIP: GISS is all alone in making this claim: They use a statistical method for making the zone chart for the artic region.A method that is considered improper. Have you actually visited and viewed the artic weather reporting stations? They generally do not jibe with what Jimmy is claiming. Meanwhile HadCrut3,RSS,MSU show a much lower temperature.

Ok WIP. I will state this.The EDITORIAL conclusions I posted does not appear to bother anyone. Therefore this forum like a few other forums I posted the EDITORIAL in.Does not stay on the topic and argues peripheral issues.Ignoring the main ones that were written about in the EDITORIAL.The ones that really count.