Discussion:
Climate change was behind this summer’s extreme weather
Add Reply
Unum
2018-11-04 03:46:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-not-rocket-science-climate-change-was-behind-this-summers-extreme-weather/2018/11/02/b8852584-dea9-11e8-b3f0-62607289efee_story.html

A warmer ocean evaporates more moisture into the atmosphere — so you get worse
flooding from coastal storms (think Hurricanes Harvey and Florence). Warmer
soils evaporate more moisture into the atmosphere — so you get worse droughts
(think California or Syria). Global warming shifts the extreme upper tail of
the “bell curve” toward higher temperatures, so you get more frequent and
intense heat waves (think summer 2018 just about anywhere in the Northern
Hemisphere). Combine heat and drought, and you get worse wildfires (again,
think California).

In a study my co-authors and I recently published in the journal Science
Advances, we identified a key factor behind the rise in extreme summer weather
events (such as the ones that played out in summer 2018) that — as we
demonstrate in our study — is not captured by current generation climate
models. Using an alternative approach based on a combination of models and
real-world observations, we showed that climate change is causing the summer
jet stream to behave increasingly oddly. The characteristic continental-scale
meanders of the jet stream (its “waviness”) as it travels from west to east
are becoming more pronounced and are tending to remain locked in place for
longer stretches of time.

Under these circumstances — when, for example, a deep high-pressure “ridge”
gets stuck over California or Europe — we usually see extreme heat, drought
and wildfire. And typically there’s a deep low-pressure “trough” downstream,
stuck over, say, the eastern United States or Japan, yielding excessive
rainfall and flooding. That’s exactly what happened in summer 2018. The spate
of extreme floods, droughts, heat waves and wildfires we experienced were a
consequence of such jet stream behavior.

Our study shows that climate change is making that behavior more common,
giving us the disastrous European heat wave of 2003 (during which more than
30,000 people perished), the devastating 2011 Texas drought (during which
ranchers in Oklahoma and Texas lost 24 percent and 17 percent of their cattle,
respectively), the 2016 Alberta wildfire (the costliest natural disaster in
Canadian history) and yes, the extreme summer of 2018.
$27 TRILLION to PAY for KYOTO
2018-11-04 06:25:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Summer wasn't extreme and "costliest" is like saying anything in 2018 cost more than it did in 1990, meaningless.
Catoni
2018-11-04 06:48:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-not-rocket-science-climate-change-was-behind-this-summers-extreme-weather/2018/11/02/b8852584-dea9-11e8-b3f0-62607289efee_story.html
A warmer ocean evaporates more moisture into the atmosphere — so you get worse
flooding from coastal storms (think Hurricanes Harvey and Florence). Warmer
soils evaporate more moisture into the atmosphere — so you get worse droughts
(think California or Syria). Global warming shifts the extreme upper tail of
the “bell curve” toward higher temperatures, so you get more frequent and
intense heat waves (think summer 2018 just about anywhere in the Northern
Hemisphere). Combine heat and drought, and you get worse wildfires (again,
think California).
In a study my co-authors and I recently published in the journal Science
Advances, we identified a key factor behind the rise in extreme summer weather
events (such as the ones that played out in summer 2018) that — as we
demonstrate in our study — is not captured by current generation climate
models. Using an alternative approach based on a combination of models and
real-world observations, we showed that climate change is causing the summer
jet stream to behave increasingly oddly. The characteristic continental-scale
meanders of the jet stream (its “waviness”) as it travels from west to east
are becoming more pronounced and are tending to remain locked in place for
longer stretches of time.
Under these circumstances — when, for example, a deep high-pressure “ridge”
gets stuck over California or Europe — we usually see extreme heat, drought
and wildfire. And typically there’s a deep low-pressure “trough” downstream,
stuck over, say, the eastern United States or Japan, yielding excessive
rainfall and flooding. That’s exactly what happened in summer 2018. The spate
of extreme floods, droughts, heat waves and wildfires we experienced were a
consequence of such jet stream behavior.
Our study shows that climate change is making that behavior more common,
giving us the disastrous European heat wave of 2003 (during which more than
30,000 people perished), the devastating 2011 Texas drought (during which
ranchers in Oklahoma and Texas lost 24 percent and 17 percent of their cattle,
respectively), the 2016 Alberta wildfire (the costliest natural disaster in
Canadian history) and yes, the extreme summer of 2018.
Extreme summer ? ? You smokin that funny shit again? ?

Wasnt extreme at all where I live....

But we did have an early fall frost..... too cold..... too early.. Must be that Gore Bull Whamming...

People here are already saying they miss the hot summer weather.
Unum
2018-11-04 14:39:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Catoni
Post by Unum
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-not-rocket-science-climate-change-was-behind-this-summers-extreme-weather/2018/11/02/b8852584-dea9-11e8-b3f0-62607289efee_story.html
A warmer ocean evaporates more moisture into the atmosphere — so you get worse
flooding from coastal storms (think Hurricanes Harvey and Florence). Warmer
soils evaporate more moisture into the atmosphere — so you get worse droughts
(think California or Syria). Global warming shifts the extreme upper tail of
the “bell curve” toward higher temperatures, so you get more frequent and
intense heat waves (think summer 2018 just about anywhere in the Northern
Hemisphere). Combine heat and drought, and you get worse wildfires (again,
think California).
In a study my co-authors and I recently published in the journal Science
Advances, we identified a key factor behind the rise in extreme summer weather
events (such as the ones that played out in summer 2018) that — as we
demonstrate in our study — is not captured by current generation climate
models. Using an alternative approach based on a combination of models and
real-world observations, we showed that climate change is causing the summer
jet stream to behave increasingly oddly. The characteristic continental-scale
meanders of the jet stream (its “waviness”) as it travels from west to east
are becoming more pronounced and are tending to remain locked in place for
longer stretches of time.
Under these circumstances — when, for example, a deep high-pressure “ridge”
gets stuck over California or Europe — we usually see extreme heat, drought
and wildfire. And typically there’s a deep low-pressure “trough” downstream,
stuck over, say, the eastern United States or Japan, yielding excessive
rainfall and flooding. That’s exactly what happened in summer 2018. The spate
of extreme floods, droughts, heat waves and wildfires we experienced were a
consequence of such jet stream behavior.
Our study shows that climate change is making that behavior more common,
giving us the disastrous European heat wave of 2003 (during which more than
30,000 people perished), the devastating 2011 Texas drought (during which
ranchers in Oklahoma and Texas lost 24 percent and 17 percent of their cattle,
respectively), the 2016 Alberta wildfire (the costliest natural disaster in
Canadian history) and yes, the extreme summer of 2018.
Extreme summer ? ? You smokin that funny shit again? ?
Wasnt extreme at all where I live....
Why should anyone care what the weather was like in cartooni's back yard?

https://weather.com/news/news/2018-06-27-weirdest-weather-2018-first-half/
Paul Aubrin
2018-11-04 14:41:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Why should anyone care what the weather was like in cartooni's back yard?
It is as relevant to global climate as any local storm somewhere in the
world.
Paul Aubrin
2018-11-04 07:16:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
A warmer ocean evaporates more moisture into the atmosphere — so you get
worse flooding from coastal storms (think Hurricanes Harvey and
Florence). Warmer soils evaporate more moisture into the atmosphere — so
you get worse droughts (think California or Syria). Global warming
shifts the extreme upper tail of the “bell curve” toward higher
temperatures,
The probability density function (PDF) of daily atmospheric anomalies are
not Gaussian at all. This has a great influence on the probability of
extreme values, because those PDF are skewed and heavy tailed. Therefore
any conclusion derived from a Gaussian approximation will likely be
deceptive.
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-04 18:04:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
If the climate movement ever wants to be taken seriously, the best thing
it could do is stop referring to Mann as a climate authority. His
reputation among the research community is lower than a snake's belly in
a wagon rut.
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-04 19:12:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
If the climate movement ever wants to be taken seriously, the best thing
it could do is stop referring to Mann as a climate authority.  His
reputation among the research community is lower than a snake's belly in
a wagon rut.
All one has to do is read this and you'll never take Mann seriously
again (if you ever did in the first place).


https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
Unum
2018-11-04 19:47:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
If the climate movement ever wants to be taken seriously, the best thing it
could do is stop referring to Mann as a climate authority.  His reputation
among the research community is lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut.
Dr. Michael E. Mann is Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at Penn
State, with joint appointments in the Department of Geosciences and the Earth
and Environmental Systems Institute (EESI). He is also director of the Penn
State Earth System Science Center (ESSC). In 2012 he was inducted as a Fellow
of the American Geophysical Union and was awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of
the European Geosciences Union. In 2013 he was elected a Fellow of the
American Meteorological Society

Meanwhile Roy Spencer is some guy with a blog.
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-04 20:07:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
If the climate movement ever wants to be taken seriously, the best
thing it could do is stop referring to Mann as a climate authority.
His reputation among the research community is lower than a snake's
belly in a wagon rut.
Dr. Michael E. Mann
A total and absolute refutation of Mann's signature work.


https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
Unum
2018-11-07 22:25:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
If the climate movement ever wants to be taken seriously, the best thing it
could do is stop referring to Mann as a climate authority. His reputation
among the research community is lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut.
Dr. Michael E. Mann
A total and absolute refutation of Mann's signature work.
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
Why is it published in a lieblog and not a reputable journal?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years

"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
R Kym Horsell
2018-11-08 00:03:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
...
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
If the climate movement ever wants to be taken seriously, the best thing it
among the research community is lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut.
Dr. Michael E. Mann
A total and absolute refutation of Mann's signature work.
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
Why is it published in a lieblog and not a reputable journal?
Because there are laws against public defecation, but what you do in
the privacy of your own blog is yor bidness.
Post by Unum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
Ditto goin after major temp series. Simply underling how many data
series say exactly the same thin -- even ones hillbillies cite alla time.
Ditto all thier odda time-worn antics.
--
Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions

Climate Myth: It's the sun
"Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in
the numbers of sunspots, at the time when the Earth has been getting
warmer. The data suggests solar activity is influencing the global
climate causing the world to get warmer." (BBC)

What The Science Says:
In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight
cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite
directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the
increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount.
...
Satellites have directly measured TSI since 1978.
<Loading Image...>
Figure 2: Total Solar Irradiance as measured by satellite from 1978 to 2010

As you can see, over the past 32 years, TSI has remained unchanged on
average. In the early 20th century, from about 1900 to 1950 there was
an increase in TSI from about 1365.5 to 1366 W-m-2. The change in
global temperature in response to a radiative forcing is:
[some formula]
Where 'dT' is the change in the Earth's average surface temperature,
'#' is the climate sensitivity, usually with units in Kelvin or
degrees Celsius per Watts per square meter (?C/[W-m-2]), and 'dF' is
the radiative forcing.

So now to calculate the change in temperature [...]
with a most likely value of 0.15?C

We can confirm this by comparing the calculation to empirical
observations. From 1900 to 1950 the Earth's surface temperature
warmed by about 0.4?C. Over that period, humans increased the amount
of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by about 20 parts per million by
volume. This corresponds to an anthropogenic warming of [...]
a most likely value of 0.22?C.
Therefore, the solar forcing combined with the anthropogenic CO2
forcing and other minor forcings (such as decreased volcanic activity)
can account for the 0.4?C warming in the early 20th century, with the
solar forcing accounting for about 40% of the total warming. Over the
past century, this increase in TSI is responsible for about 15-20% of
global warming (Meehl 2004). But since TSI hasn't increased in at
least the past 32 years (and more like 60 years, based on
reconstructions), the Sun is not directly responsible for the warming
over that period.
Wally W.
2018-11-08 05:31:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R Kym Horsell
...
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
If the climate movement ever wants to be taken seriously, the best thing it
among the research community is lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut.
Dr. Michael E. Mann
A total and absolute refutation of Mann's signature work.
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
Why is it published in a lieblog and not a reputable journal?
Because there are laws against public defecation, but what you do in
the privacy of your own blog is yor bidness.
or in a sig?

Who needs to be civil?
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-08 01:07:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
If the climate movement ever wants to be taken seriously, the best
thing it could do is stop referring to Mann as a climate authority.
His reputation among the research community is lower than a snake's
belly in a wagon rut.
Dr. Michael E. Mann
A total and absolute refutation of Mann's signature work.
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
Why is it published in a lieblog and not a reputable journal?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
A billion hockey sticks won't validate Mann's bad work.
Unum
2018-11-08 04:55:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
If the climate movement ever wants to be taken seriously, the best thing
it could do is stop referring to Mann as a climate authority. His
reputation among the research community is lower than a snake's belly in
a wagon rut.
Dr. Michael E. Mann
A total and absolute refutation of Mann's signature work.
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
Why is it published in a lieblog and not a reputable journal?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
A billion hockey sticks won't validate Mann's bad work.
Why so darn desperate to smear one of the world's most respected
climate scientists? And why would chumpsky think it matters?
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-08 17:22:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
If the climate movement ever wants to be taken seriously, the best
thing it could do is stop referring to Mann as a climate
authority. His reputation among the research community is lower
than a snake's belly in a wagon rut.
Dr. Michael E. Mann
A total and absolute refutation of Mann's signature work.
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
Why is it published in a lieblog and not a reputable journal?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
A billion hockey sticks won't validate Mann's bad work.
Why so darn desperate to smear one of the world's most respected
climate scientists? And why would chumpsky think it matters?
It ain't smear if its true. Not that some Usenet nutter like you is
qualified to even read the article.

https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
Unum
2018-11-08 18:23:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
If the climate movement ever wants to be taken seriously, the best
thing it could do is stop referring to Mann as a climate authority. His
reputation among the research community is lower than a snake's belly
in a wagon rut.
Dr. Michael E. Mann
A total and absolute refutation of Mann's signature work.
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
Why is it published in a lieblog and not a reputable journal?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
A billion hockey sticks won't validate Mann's bad work.
Why so darn desperate to smear one of the world's most respected
climate scientists? And why would chumpsky think it matters?
It ain't smear if its true.  Not that some Usenet nutter like you is qualified
to even read the article.
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
lieblogs don't really count, do they.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years

"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-08 18:35:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
If the climate movement ever wants to be taken seriously, the
best thing it could do is stop referring to Mann as a climate
authority. His reputation among the research community is lower
than a snake's belly in a wagon rut.
Dr. Michael E. Mann
A total and absolute refutation of Mann's signature work.
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
Why is it published in a lieblog and not a reputable journal?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
A billion hockey sticks won't validate Mann's bad work.
Why so darn desperate to smear one of the world's most respected
climate scientists? And why would chumpsky think it matters?
It ain't smear if its true.  Not that some Usenet nutter like you is
qualified to even read the article.
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
lieblogs don't really count, do they.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
That may or may not be true, but it still won't save Mann's flawed work.

Every study stands on its data, and the data Mann used for his
reconstructions only makes hockey sticks when stripbark bristlecones are
included.

The NAS concluded that bristlecone should not be included nor used as
proxy for temperature reconstructions, yet Mann ignored that advisory.

Why? Because that's the only way he could get the stick.

The problem with your mad defensive barking is that anyone can
independently validate Climate Audit's claims.

Dat cuz they are based on facts and data, not opinion.

While yer wiping the snot off yer gob, refute these 200 hunnert
not-a-hockey-sticks:

http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/22/200-non-hockey-stick-graphs-published-since-2017-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-warming/
Unum
2018-11-08 22:13:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
If the climate movement ever wants to be taken seriously, the best
thing it could do is stop referring to Mann as a climate authority.
His reputation among the research community is lower than a snake's
belly in a wagon rut.
Dr. Michael E. Mann
A total and absolute refutation of Mann's signature work.
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
Why is it published in a lieblog and not a reputable journal?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
A billion hockey sticks won't validate Mann's bad work.
Why so darn desperate to smear one of the world's most respected
climate scientists? And why would chumpsky think it matters?
It ain't smear if its true.  Not that some Usenet nutter like you is
qualified to even read the article.
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
lieblogs don't really count, do they.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
That may or may not be true, but it still won't save Mann's flawed work.
Every study stands on its data, and the data Mann used for his reconstructions
only makes hockey sticks when stripbark bristlecones are included.
The NAS concluded that bristlecone should not be included nor used as proxy
for temperature reconstructions, yet Mann ignored that advisory.
Why? Because that's the only way he could get the stick.
In that case why are there "more than two dozen reconstructions, using various
statistical methods and combinations of proxy records" that support Mann's
conclusions?
Post by Chom Noamsky
The problem with your mad defensive barking is that anyone can independently
validate Climate Audit's claims.
So let's see you do it. Don't rely on anything whatsoever in the lieblog, do
your own independent work. Also I am noting that McIntyre's yapping references
PAGES (2013) which clearly states;

"all regions experienced a longterm cooling trend followed by recent warming
during the twentieth century"

It also destroys the concept of global MWP and LIA;
"Our regional temperature reconstructions (Fig. 2) also show little evidence
for globally synchronized multi-decadal shifts that would mark well-defined
worldwide MWP and LIA intervals. Instead, the specific timing of peak warm and
cold intervals varies regionally, with multi-decadal variability resulting in
regionally specific temperature departures from an underlying global cooling
trend."
R Kym Horsell
2018-11-08 22:40:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
If the climate movement ever wants to be taken seriously, the best
thing it could do is stop referring to Mann as a climate authority.
His reputation among the research community is lower than a snake's
belly in a wagon rut.
Dr. Michael E. Mann
A total and absolute refutation of Mann's signature work.
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
Why is it published in a lieblog and not a reputable journal?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
A billion hockey sticks won't validate Mann's bad work.
Why so darn desperate to smear one of the world's most respected
climate scientists? And why would chumpsky think it matters?
It ain't smear if its true. Not that some Usenet nutter like you is
qualified to even read the article.
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
lieblogs don't really count, do they.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
That may or may not be true, but it still won't save Mann's flawed work.
Every study stands on its data, and the data Mann used for his reconstructions
only makes hockey sticks when stripbark bristlecones are included.
The NAS concluded that bristlecone should not be included nor used as proxy
for temperature reconstructions, yet Mann ignored that advisory.
Why? Because that's the only way he could get the stick.
In that case why are there "more than two dozen reconstructions, using various
statistical methods and combinations of proxy records" that support Mann's
conclusions?
Don't forget the other way. Those 200 that Chumsky mentioned that supposedly
get the "opposite" answer. Any based in California will be most likely
guess-what proxy?
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
The problem with your mad defensive barking is that anyone can independently
validate Climate Audit's claims.
So let's see you do it. Don't rely on anything whatsoever in the lieblog, do
your own independent work. Also I am noting that McIntyre's yapping references
PAGES (2013) which clearly states;
"all regions experienced a longterm cooling trend followed by recent warming
during the twentieth century"
It also destroys the concept of global MWP and LIA;
"Our regional temperature reconstructions (Fig. 2) also show little evidence
for globally synchronized multi-decadal shifts that would mark well-defined
worldwide MWP and LIA intervals. Instead, the specific timing of peak warm and
cold intervals varies regionally, with multi-decadal variability resulting in
regionally specific temperature departures from an underlying global cooling
trend."
--
[Hillbilly ERIC STEVENS claims without checking atolls allays grow and
therefore will never become submerged.
But then:]

Are there any submerged islands or atolls, or shallow (a few ...
Jul 3, 2016
Lots! There are several in the Papahanaumokuakea National Marine Sanctuary.
The northwestern Hawaiian islands were formed by the same ...
-- https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-submerged-islands-or-atolls-or-shallow-a-few-me...

[365,000 google hits]


[Another small problem: reefs generally may or may not grow but when
they do "caint" for mechanical reasons grow much thicker than ~40m and
anyway increase at a rate around 1 mm per yr -- somewhat less than
the 3+ mm/yr SLR in the sat era].

Continuous coral reef growth since the last glacial lowstand of sea level
some 18 kyrs BP has been documented by drilling around the islands of
Barbados (Fairbanks, 1989) and Tahiti (Bard et al., 1990). In the majority
of cases investigated though, shelf reefs started to accrete not earlier
than the Holocene (< 10 kyrs BP). Holocene reef thickness and accretion-
rates exhibit large variation and can be as high as > 40 m and > 20 m/kyr,
respectively (Dullo, 2005; Montaggioni, 2005). Scoffin (1992) has summarized
how the synchronously operating processes of framework growth, bioerosion
and breakage (reef destruction), encrustation, loose sediment accumulation,
and cementation have resulted in late Quaternary reef accretion. A number of
external factors such as antecedent topography, water temperature, nutrient
concentrations, and exposure to waves and currents influence Holocene reef
growth; however, sea level appears to exert major control. Neumann and
Macintyre (1985) have elegantly...
-- https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-90-481-2639-2_222
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-08 23:35:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
If the climate movement ever wants to be taken seriously, the
best thing it could do is stop referring to Mann as a climate
authority. His reputation among the research community is
lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut.
Dr. Michael E. Mann
A total and absolute refutation of Mann's signature work.
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
Why is it published in a lieblog and not a reputable journal?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and
combinations of proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
A billion hockey sticks won't validate Mann's bad work.
Why so darn desperate to smear one of the world's most respected
climate scientists? And why would chumpsky think it matters?
It ain't smear if its true.  Not that some Usenet nutter like you is
qualified to even read the article.
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
lieblogs don't really count, do they.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
That may or may not be true, but it still won't save Mann's flawed work.
Every study stands on its data, and the data Mann used for his
reconstructions only makes hockey sticks when stripbark bristlecones
are included.
The NAS concluded that bristlecone should not be included nor used as
proxy for temperature reconstructions, yet Mann ignored that advisory.
Why? Because that's the only way he could get the stick.
In that case why are there "more than two dozen reconstructions, using various
statistical methods and combinations of proxy records" that support Mann's
conclusions?
Every research paper stands on its own merit, so a billion other hockey
sticks won't validate Mann's crappy work.
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
The problem with your mad defensive barking is that anyone can
independently validate Climate Audit's claims.
So let's see you do it. Don't rely on anything whatsoever in the lieblog, do
your own independent work. Also I am noting that McIntyre's yapping references
Now how exactly would I go about validating Climate Audit's claims
without referencing Climate Audit? As usual, yer gob is way ahead of
yer brain.
Post by Unum
PAGES (2013) which clearly states;
"all regions experienced a longterm cooling trend followed by recent warming
during the twentieth century"
And? Doesn't change the fact that based on the data Mann used, there is
no stick without bristlecone, and the NAS told scientists not to use
bristlecone.
Post by Unum
It also destroys the concept of global MWP and LIA;
"Our regional temperature reconstructions (Fig. 2) also show little
evidence for globally synchronized multi-decadal shifts that would mark
well-defined worldwide MWP and LIA intervals. Instead, the specific
timing of peak warm and cold intervals varies regionally, with
multi-decadal variability resulting in regionally specific temperature
departures from an underlying global cooling trend."
"The findings support the view that the Holocene Thermal Maximum, the
Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age were global events,"

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617
Unum
2018-11-09 06:06:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
If the climate movement ever wants to be taken seriously, the best
thing it could do is stop referring to Mann as a climate authority.
His reputation among the research community is lower than a snake's
belly in a wagon rut.
Dr. Michael E. Mann
A total and absolute refutation of Mann's signature work.
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
Why is it published in a lieblog and not a reputable journal?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
A billion hockey sticks won't validate Mann's bad work.
Why so darn desperate to smear one of the world's most respected
climate scientists? And why would chumpsky think it matters?
It ain't smear if its true.  Not that some Usenet nutter like you is
qualified to even read the article.
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
lieblogs don't really count, do they.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
That may or may not be true, but it still won't save Mann's flawed work.
Every study stands on its data, and the data Mann used for his
reconstructions only makes hockey sticks when stripbark bristlecones are
included.
The NAS concluded that bristlecone should not be included nor used as proxy
for temperature reconstructions, yet Mann ignored that advisory.
Why? Because that's the only way he could get the stick.
In that case why are there "more than two dozen reconstructions, using various
statistical methods and combinations of proxy records" that support Mann's
conclusions?
Every research paper stands on its own merit, so a billion other hockey sticks
won't validate Mann's crappy work.
According to some guy's blog, lol.
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
The problem with your mad defensive barking is that anyone can
independently validate Climate Audit's claims.
So let's see you do it. Don't rely on anything whatsoever in the lieblog, do
your own independent work. Also I am noting that McIntyre's yapping references
Now how exactly would I go about validating Climate Audit's claims without
referencing Climate Audit?  As usual, yer gob is way ahead of yer brain.
So you can't "independently validate Climate Audit's claims" and you lied?
Post by Unum
PAGES (2013) which clearly states;
"all regions experienced a longterm cooling trend followed by recent warming
during the twentieth century"
And?  Doesn't change the fact that based on the data Mann used, there is no
stick without bristlecone, and the NAS told scientists not to use bristlecone.
Merely pointing out that McIntyre's references don't back up his claims.
Post by Unum
It also destroys the concept of global MWP and LIA;
"Our regional temperature reconstructions (Fig. 2) also show little evidence
for globally synchronized multi-decadal shifts that would mark well-defined
worldwide MWP and LIA intervals. Instead, the specific timing of peak warm
and cold intervals varies regionally, with multi-decadal variability
resulting in regionally specific temperature departures from an underlying
global cooling trend."
"The findings support the view that the Holocene Thermal Maximum, the Medieval
Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age were global events,"
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617
Not according to PAGES (2013), which is the reference McIntyre cited. Now
chumpsky thinks the abstract from some other study will save him.
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-09 07:59:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
If the climate movement ever wants to be taken seriously,
the best thing it could do is stop referring to Mann as a
climate authority. His reputation among the research
community is lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut.
Dr. Michael E. Mann
A total and absolute refutation of Mann's signature work.
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
Why is it published in a lieblog and not a reputable journal?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and
combinations of proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
A billion hockey sticks won't validate Mann's bad work.
Why so darn desperate to smear one of the world's most respected
climate scientists? And why would chumpsky think it matters?
It ain't smear if its true.  Not that some Usenet nutter like you
is qualified to even read the article.
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
lieblogs don't really count, do they.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
That may or may not be true, but it still won't save Mann's flawed work.
Every study stands on its data, and the data Mann used for his
reconstructions only makes hockey sticks when stripbark bristlecones
are included.
The NAS concluded that bristlecone should not be included nor used
as proxy for temperature reconstructions, yet Mann ignored that
advisory.
Why? Because that's the only way he could get the stick.
In that case why are there "more than two dozen reconstructions, using various
statistical methods and combinations of proxy records" that support Mann's
conclusions?
Every research paper stands on its own merit, so a billion other
hockey sticks won't validate Mann's crappy work.
According to some guy's blog, lol.
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
The problem with your mad defensive barking is that anyone can
independently validate Climate Audit's claims.
So let's see you do it. Don't rely on anything whatsoever in the lieblog, do
your own independent work. Also I am noting that McIntyre's yapping references
Now how exactly would I go about validating Climate Audit's claims
without referencing Climate Audit?  As usual, yer gob is way ahead of
yer brain.
So you can't "independently validate Climate Audit's claims" and you lied?
Yep, I absolutely could.
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
PAGES (2013) which clearly states;
"all regions experienced a longterm cooling trend followed by recent warming
during the twentieth century"
And?  Doesn't change the fact that based on the data Mann used, there
is no stick without bristlecone, and the NAS told scientists not to
use bristlecone.
Merely pointing out that McIntyre's references don't back up his claims.
Over the years McIntyre has exposed numerous errors by the PAGES 2k
authors and their data, including proxies used upside down, record sets
with no apparent correlation to temperature (but used because they made
hockey sticks), contaminated proxies, and of course the use of
bristlecone chronologies which the NAS advises not to use.

Many of the PAGES2K errors have been corrected due to pressure by
McIntyre, that's how you know he knows his stuff.

And it's not really a global reconstruction:

Is This Really A Global, 2,000-Year Reconstruction?

The PAGES 2k temperature reconstruction utilizes proxy data from 7 land
regions, but excludes the entire continent of Africa. (Oceans, covering
71% of the Earth’s surface, are also excluded from this “global” record.)

Despite being hailed as a global-scale, 2,000-year reconstruction, just
2 of the 7 regions, the Arctic and Europe, analyzed temperatures from
the entire 0 AD to 2000 period.

Antarctica was represented beginning in 167 AD. Asia begins in 800 AD.
South America begins in 857 AD. North America proxy data begins in 1204
AD and ends in 1974 (tree rings) and 480 to 1950 (pollen). Australasia
begins in 1001 AD.

http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/29/another-bust-pages-2k-global-reconstruction-fails-to-confirm-the-hockey-stick/
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
It also destroys the concept of global MWP and LIA;
"Our regional temperature reconstructions (Fig. 2) also show little
evidence for globally synchronized multi-decadal shifts that would
mark well-defined worldwide MWP and LIA intervals. Instead, the
specific timing of peak warm and cold intervals varies regionally,
with multi-decadal variability resulting in regionally specific
temperature departures from an underlying global cooling trend."
"The findings support the view that the Holocene Thermal Maximum, the
Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age were global events,"
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617
Not according to PAGES (2013), which is the reference McIntyre cited. Now
chumpsky thinks the abstract from some other study will save him.
All the authors said is that their reconstructions showed little
evidence for "globally synchronized multi-decadal shifts that would mark
well-defined worldwide MWP and LIA intervals."

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

PAGES is based on land proxies (with huge holes in temporal/spatial
coverage, see above) while the article I cited is based on ocean
proxies. The authors of the article *do* find evidence that the MWP and
LIA were global events. That's how science works, new evidence leads to
new conclusions. There is no scientific theory in existence that is
safe from revision.

Your silly commentary and diversion to the MWP/LIA topic won't change
the fact that McIntyre has identified errors in Mann's work serious
enough to discredit his validity.
Unum
2018-11-09 23:38:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
If the climate movement ever wants to be taken seriously, the
best thing it could do is stop referring to Mann as a climate
authority. His reputation among the research community is lower
than a snake's belly in a wagon rut.
Dr. Michael E. Mann
A total and absolute refutation of Mann's signature work.
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
Why is it published in a lieblog and not a reputable journal?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations
of proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft"
appears."
A billion hockey sticks won't validate Mann's bad work.
Why so darn desperate to smear one of the world's most respected
climate scientists? And why would chumpsky think it matters?
It ain't smear if its true.  Not that some Usenet nutter like you is
qualified to even read the article.
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
lieblogs don't really count, do they.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
That may or may not be true, but it still won't save Mann's flawed work.
Every study stands on its data, and the data Mann used for his
reconstructions only makes hockey sticks when stripbark bristlecones are
included.
The NAS concluded that bristlecone should not be included nor used as
proxy for temperature reconstructions, yet Mann ignored that advisory.
Why? Because that's the only way he could get the stick.
In that case why are there "more than two dozen reconstructions, using various
statistical methods and combinations of proxy records" that support Mann's
conclusions?
Every research paper stands on its own merit, so a billion other hockey
sticks won't validate Mann's crappy work.
According to some guy's blog, lol.
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
The problem with your mad defensive barking is that anyone can
independently validate Climate Audit's claims.
So let's see you do it. Don't rely on anything whatsoever in the lieblog, do
your own independent work. Also I am noting that McIntyre's yapping references
Now how exactly would I go about validating Climate Audit's claims without
referencing Climate Audit?  As usual, yer gob is way ahead of yer brain.
So you can't "independently validate Climate Audit's claims" and you lied?
Yep, I absolutely could.
Prove it, lieboy. No amount of yapping will substitute for your
totally independent validation of all claims. You can start with
"the contribution from all other proxies was nothing more than
whitish noise". Come back to the internet when you are ready to
present your work.
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
PAGES (2013) which clearly states;
"all regions experienced a longterm cooling trend followed by recent warming
during the twentieth century"
And?  Doesn't change the fact that based on the data Mann used, there is no
stick without bristlecone, and the NAS told scientists not to use bristlecone.
McIntyre admits;
"Maybe Graybill bristlecone chronologies are a reasonable temperature proxy."
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Merely pointing out that McIntyre's references don't back up his claims.
Over the years McIntyre has exposed numerous errors by the PAGES 2k authors
So McIntyre's references don't back up his claims and chumpsky is
full of shit yet again?
R Kym Horsell
2018-11-09 07:46:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
...
Post by Unum
It also destroys the concept of global MWP and LIA;
"Our regional temperature reconstructions (Fig. 2) also show little evidence
for globally synchronized multi-decadal shifts that would mark well-defined
worldwide MWP and LIA intervals. Instead, the specific timing of peak warm and
cold intervals varies regionally, with multi-decadal variability resulting in
regionally specific temperature departures from an underlying global cooling
trend."
One second chumpsky says apart from N Am all the proxy data looks
like "white noise". Now they show features.

Does this guy ever remember what he said 10 seconds ago?
--
Ocean Warming - Ocean Scientists for Informed Policy
Only the smallest fraction of this thermal energy goes into warming the
atmosphere. Humans thus, living at the interface of the land, ocean and
atmosphere, only feel a sliver of the true warming cost of fossil fuel
emissions. This 90% of extra heat taken up by the ocean is mostly in the
upper 700 meters (m) layer (about 60% of ...
-- www.oceanscientists.org/index.php/topics/ocean-warming


[In other words, if it weren't for the oceans AGW would already have
raised the earth's surface temperature more than 40 deg C. (Some
people calculate 100C or more -- it's a bit complicated)].
Unum
2018-11-09 23:29:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R Kym Horsell
...
Post by Unum
It also destroys the concept of global MWP and LIA;
"Our regional temperature reconstructions (Fig. 2) also show little evidence
for globally synchronized multi-decadal shifts that would mark well-defined
worldwide MWP and LIA intervals. Instead, the specific timing of peak warm and
cold intervals varies regionally, with multi-decadal variability resulting in
regionally specific temperature departures from an underlying global cooling
trend."
One second chumpsky says apart from N Am all the proxy data looks
like "white noise". Now they show features.
Does this guy ever remember what he said 10 seconds ago?
It's all about the backflipping. One argument gets destroyed, no
problem. The next one is just as good!
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-08 03:25:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
If the climate movement ever wants to be taken seriously, the best
thing it could do is stop referring to Mann as a climate authority.
His reputation among the research community is lower than a snake's
belly in a wagon rut.
Dr. Michael E. Mann
A total and absolute refutation of Mann's signature work.
https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/
Why is it published in a lieblog and not a reputable journal?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
"as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen
reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy
records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
Two-hunnert not-a-hockey-sticks!


http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/22/200-non-hockey-stick-graphs-published-since-2017-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-warming/
$27 TRILLION to PAY for KYOTO
2018-11-05 00:15:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
If the climate movement ever wants to be taken seriously, the best thing it
could do is stop referring to Mann as a climate authority.  His reputation
among the research community is lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut.
Dr. Michael E. Mann is Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at Penn
State, with joint appointments in the Department of Geosciences and the Earth
and Environmental Systems Institute (EESI). He is also director of the Penn
State Earth System Science Center (ESSC). In 2012 he was inducted as a Fellow
of the American Geophysical Union and was awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of
the European Geosciences Union. In 2013 he was elected a Fellow of the
American Meteorological Society
Meanwhile Roy Spencer is some guy with a blog.
Has he ever had a real job, not paid-for by tax-payers?
Catoni
2018-11-05 03:25:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
If the climate movement ever wants to be taken seriously, the best thing it
could do is stop referring to Mann as a climate authority.  His reputation
among the research community is lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut.
Dr. Michael E. Mann is Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at Penn
State, with joint appointments in the Department of Geosciences and the Earth
and Environmental Systems Institute (EESI). He is also director of the Penn
State Earth System Science Center (ESSC). In 2012 he was inducted as a Fellow
of the American Geophysical Union and was awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of
the European Geosciences Union. In 2013 he was elected a Fellow of the
American Meteorological Society
Yeah..... what a shame!

Just goes to show that being smart does not mean that you have any wisdom and honesty. .
Unum
2018-11-07 22:27:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Catoni
Post by Unum
If the climate movement ever wants to be taken seriously, the best thing it
could do is stop referring to Mann as a climate authority.  His reputation
among the research community is lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut.
Dr. Michael E. Mann is Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at Penn
State, with joint appointments in the Department of Geosciences and the Earth
and Environmental Systems Institute (EESI). He is also director of the Penn
State Earth System Science Center (ESSC). In 2012 he was inducted as a Fellow
of the American Geophysical Union and was awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of
the European Geosciences Union. In 2013 he was elected a Fellow of the
American Meteorological Society
Yeah..... what a shame!
So he does have an outstanding reputation after all, lol.
Post by Catoni
Just goes to show that being smart does not mean that you have any wisdom and honesty. .
According to some lying old nutjob on the internet.
Catoni
2018-11-05 03:36:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
If the climate movement ever wants to be taken seriously, the best thing it
could do is stop referring to Mann as a climate authority.  His reputation
among the research community is lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut.
Dr. Michael E. Mann is Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at Penn
State, with joint appointments in the Department of Geosciences and the Earth
and Environmental Systems Institute (EESI). He is also director of the Penn
State Earth System Science Center (ESSC). In 2012 he was inducted as a Fellow
of the American Geophysical Union and was awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of
the European Geosciences Union. In 2013 he was elected a Fellow of the
American Meteorological Society
Meanwhile Roy Spencer is some guy with a blog.
Dr. Roy Spencer.... *...some guy with a blog.* LOL

Roy Warren Spencer (born December 20, 1955) is a meteorologist, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.

He is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award.


Dr. Roy Spencer received his B.S. in atmospheric sciences from the University of Michigan in 1978 and his M.S. and Ph.D. in meteorology from the University of Wisconsin–Madison in 1980 and 1982. His doctoral thesis was titled, A case study of African wave structure and energetics during Atlantic transit.

After receiving his Ph.D. in 1982, Spencer worked for two years as a research scientist in the Space Science and Engineering Center at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. He then joined NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center as a visiting scientist in 1984, where he later became senior scientist for climate studies. After leaving NASA in 2001, Spencer has been a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). As well as his position at UAH, Spencer is currently the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite, a position he has held since 1994.

In 2001, he designed an algorithm to detect tropical cyclones and estimate their maximum sustained wind speed using the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU).

Spencer has been a member of several science teams: the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) Space Station Accommodations Analysis Study Team, Science Steering Group for TRMM, TOVS Pathfinder Working Group, NASA Headquarters Earth Science and Applications Advisory Subcommittee, and two National Research Council (NRC) study panels.

He is on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall Institute, and on the board of advisors of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

Spencer's research work is funded by NASA, NOAA, DOE, and the DOT as well as by Peabody Energy.

"Aqua Project Science". NASA. Archived from the original on 2013-02-16. Retrieved 2012-08-27.
Spencer, Roy W. (March 19, 2007). "STATEMENT TO THE COMMITTEE" (PDF). United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-03-28.

Spencer, Roy Warren (1981). "A case study of African wave structure and energetics during Atlantic transit". University of Wisconsin–Madison. Retrieved 2012-08-27.

"Detecting Tropical Cyclones Using AMSU". NASA. Retrieved 2012-08-27.

Spencer, Roy W. and William D. Braswell (2001). "Atlantic Tropical Cyclone Monitoring with AMSU-A: Estimation of Maximum Sustained Wind Speeds". Monthly Weather Review. 129: 1518–1532. Bibcode:2001MWRv..129.1518S. doi:10.1175/1520-0493(2001)129<1518:ATCMWA>2.0.CO;2.

"The Marshall Institute – Staff". George C. Marshall Institute. Archived from the original on July 12, 2012.

"Cornwall Alliance Board of Advisors". Cornwall Alliance. Archived from the original on 2013-04-28.

AWARDS:

1989 – Marshall Space Flight Center Center Director’s Commendation

1990 – Alabama House of Representatives Resolution #624

1991 – NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (with John Christy)

1996 – American Meteorological Society Special Award "for developing a global, precise record of earth's temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate." (with John Christy)
Post by Unum
"..some guy with a blog." LOL Unum is hilarious.... ha, ha, ha
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-07 18:59:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Catoni
Post by Unum
If the climate movement ever wants to be taken seriously, the best thing it
could do is stop referring to Mann as a climate authority.  His reputation
among the research community is lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut.
Dr. Michael E. Mann is Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at Penn
State, with joint appointments in the Department of Geosciences and the Earth
and Environmental Systems Institute (EESI). He is also director of the Penn
State Earth System Science Center (ESSC). In 2012 he was inducted as a Fellow
of the American Geophysical Union and was awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of
the European Geosciences Union. In 2013 he was elected a Fellow of the
American Meteorological Society
Meanwhile Roy Spencer is some guy with a blog.
Dr. Roy Spencer.... *...some guy with a blog.*
Kind of ironic considering kookunum posts nothing but opinion blog content.
Kym Horsell
2018-11-07 19:18:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Catoni
Post by Unum
If the climate movement ever wants to be taken seriously, the best thing it
could do is stop referring to Mann as a climate authority.  His reputation
among the research community is lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut.
Dr. Michael E. Mann is Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at Penn
State, with joint appointments in the Department of Geosciences and the Earth
and Environmental Systems Institute (EESI). He is also director of the Penn
State Earth System Science Center (ESSC). In 2012 he was inducted as a Fellow
of the American Geophysical Union and was awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of
the European Geosciences Union. In 2013 he was elected a Fellow of the
American Meteorological Society
Meanwhile Roy Spencer is some guy with a blog.
Dr. Roy Spencer.... *...some guy with a blog.*
Kind of ironic considering kookunum posts nothing but opinion blog content.
Oh sure. Like Nature, Science Advances and the WaPo.
Unum
2018-11-07 22:45:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Catoni
Post by Unum
If the climate movement ever wants to be taken seriously, the best thing it
could do is stop referring to Mann as a climate authority.  His reputation
among the research community is lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut.
Dr. Michael E. Mann is Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at Penn
State, with joint appointments in the Department of Geosciences and the Earth
and Environmental Systems Institute (EESI). He is also director of the Penn
State Earth System Science Center (ESSC). In 2012 he was inducted as a Fellow
of the American Geophysical Union and was awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of
the European Geosciences Union. In 2013 he was elected a Fellow of the
American Meteorological Society
Meanwhile Roy Spencer is some guy with a blog.
Dr. Roy Spencer.... *...some guy with a blog.* LOL
Spencer doesn't seem to have been able to get anything published
in a research journal since 2014. In 2011 he managed to sneak a paper
into a journal for geographers that was utterly demolished by climate
scientists and the editor resigned.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roy_Spencer#By_climate_scientists_-_fatally_flawed_study
Catoni
2018-11-09 21:25:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Catoni
Post by Unum
If the climate movement ever wants to be taken seriously, the best thing it
could do is stop referring to Mann as a climate authority.  His reputation
among the research community is lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut.
Dr. Michael E. Mann is Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at Penn
State, with joint appointments in the Department of Geosciences and the Earth
and Environmental Systems Institute (EESI). He is also director of the Penn
State Earth System Science Center (ESSC). In 2012 he was inducted as a Fellow
of the American Geophysical Union and was awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of
the European Geosciences Union. In 2013 he was elected a Fellow of the
American Meteorological Society
Meanwhile Roy Spencer is some guy with a blog.
Dr. Roy Spencer.... *...some guy with a blog.* LOL
Spencer doesn't seem to have been able to get anything published
in a research journal since 2014. In 2011 he managed to sneak a paper
into a journal for geographers that was utterly demolished by climate
scientists and the editor resigned.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roy_Spencer#By_climate_scientists_-_fatally_flawed_study
"SourceWatch"...LOL ha, ha, ha.......

SourceWatch: A Website for Conspiracy Theorists Run by Lawyer Lisa Graves

Taking advantage of today's toxic, confrontational mindset are outlets like SourceWatch. The website is like a politicized, unscientific version of Wikipedia. Volunteers – rather than qualified experts – write smear articles about people and groups they don't like

SourceWatch is a propaganda site funded by an extreme left-wing, anti-capitalist and anti-corporate organization, the Center for Media and Democracy. Just like the untrustworthy Wikipedia the content can be written and edited by ordinary web users. Users who all conveniently share an extreme left-wing bias. SourceWatch is frequently cited by those seeking to smear individuals and organizations who do not share their extreme left-wing bias since they cannot find any legitimate criticisms from respected news
sources.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/10/truth-about-sourcewatch.html
Unum
2018-11-09 23:39:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Catoni
Post by Unum
Post by Catoni
Post by Unum
If the climate movement ever wants to be taken seriously, the best thing it
could do is stop referring to Mann as a climate authority.  His reputation
among the research community is lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut.
Dr. Michael E. Mann is Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at Penn
State, with joint appointments in the Department of Geosciences and the Earth
and Environmental Systems Institute (EESI). He is also director of the Penn
State Earth System Science Center (ESSC). In 2012 he was inducted as a Fellow
of the American Geophysical Union and was awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of
the European Geosciences Union. In 2013 he was elected a Fellow of the
American Meteorological Society
Meanwhile Roy Spencer is some guy with a blog.
Dr. Roy Spencer.... *...some guy with a blog.* LOL
Spencer doesn't seem to have been able to get anything published
in a research journal since 2014. In 2011 he managed to sneak a paper
into a journal for geographers that was utterly demolished by climate
scientists and the editor resigned.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roy_Spencer#By_climate_scientists_-_fatally_flawed_study
"SourceWatch"...LOL ha, ha, ha.......
cartooni can't refute anything in the sourcewatch reference.
gordo
2018-11-10 18:11:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 13:25:42 -0800 (PST), Catoni
Post by Catoni
Post by Unum
Post by Catoni
Post by Unum
If the climate movement ever wants to be taken seriously, the best thing it
could do is stop referring to Mann as a climate authority.  His reputation
among the research community is lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut.
Dr. Michael E. Mann is Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at Penn
State, with joint appointments in the Department of Geosciences and the Earth
and Environmental Systems Institute (EESI). He is also director of the Penn
State Earth System Science Center (ESSC). In 2012 he was inducted as a Fellow
of the American Geophysical Union and was awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of
the European Geosciences Union. In 2013 he was elected a Fellow of the
American Meteorological Society
Meanwhile Roy Spencer is some guy with a blog.
Dr. Roy Spencer.... *...some guy with a blog.* LOL
Spencer doesn't seem to have been able to get anything published
in a research journal since 2014. In 2011 he managed to sneak a paper
into a journal for geographers that was utterly demolished by climate
scientists and the editor resigned.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roy_Spencer#By_climate_scientists_-_fatally_flawed_study
"SourceWatch"...LOL ha, ha, ha.......
SourceWatch: A Website for Conspiracy Theorists Run by Lawyer Lisa Graves
Taking advantage of today's toxic, confrontational mindset are outlets like SourceWatch. The website is like a politicized, unscientific version of Wikipedia. Volunteers – rather than qualified experts – write smear articles about people and groups they don't like
SourceWatch is a propaganda site funded by an extreme left-wing, anti-capitalist and anti-corporate organization, the Center for Media and Democracy. Just like the untrustworthy Wikipedia the content can be written and edited by ordinary web users. Users who all conveniently share an extreme left-wing bias. SourceWatch is frequently cited by those seeking to smear individuals and organizations who do not share their extreme left-wing bias since they cannot find any legitimate criticisms from respected news
sources.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/10/truth-about-sourcewatch.html
Popular Technology.net ..... LOL.. Really Catoni?????


Editor

Andrew (Information Technology)
populartechnology (at) gmail.com

Copy Editor

Karl (Computer Science)

Contributing Authors

Doug (Computer Engineering)
Mike (Electrical Engineerin

Who are Andrew,Karl.Doug and Mike?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Catoni
2018-11-10 23:41:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gordo
Popular Technology.net ..... LOL.. Really Catoni?????
A hell of a lot better and more honorable website than the disgraced DeSmogBlog and Source Watch smear sites...
Kym Horsell
2018-11-10 23:48:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Catoni
Post by gordo
Popular Technology.net ..... LOL.. Really Catoni?????
A hell of a lot better and more honorable website than the disgraced DeSmogBlog and Source Watch smear sites...
Aw garn.
Ifn I were fer desmog outsider science would nebba be documented at all.

--
[Outsider science:]
"[Outsider art] could be by a mental patient, a hillbilly or a chimpanzee."
-- character Astrid Weller, "The Simpsons", 1999.
Unum
2018-11-11 05:33:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gordo
On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 13:25:42 -0800 (PST), Catoni
Post by Catoni
Post by Unum
Post by Catoni
Post by Unum
If the climate movement ever wants to be taken seriously, the best thing it
could do is stop referring to Mann as a climate authority.  His reputation
among the research community is lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut.
Dr. Michael E. Mann is Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at Penn
State, with joint appointments in the Department of Geosciences and the Earth
and Environmental Systems Institute (EESI). He is also director of the Penn
State Earth System Science Center (ESSC). In 2012 he was inducted as a Fellow
of the American Geophysical Union and was awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of
the European Geosciences Union. In 2013 he was elected a Fellow of the
American Meteorological Society
Meanwhile Roy Spencer is some guy with a blog.
Dr. Roy Spencer.... *...some guy with a blog.* LOL
Spencer doesn't seem to have been able to get anything published
in a research journal since 2014. In 2011 he managed to sneak a paper
into a journal for geographers that was utterly demolished by climate
scientists and the editor resigned.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roy_Spencer#By_climate_scientists_-_fatally_flawed_study
"SourceWatch"...LOL ha, ha, ha.......
cartooni couldn't find anything inaccurate in this widely reported shootdown
of spencer's crap, so all he's got is brainless sniggering.
Catoni
2018-11-11 07:29:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
cartooni couldn't find anything inaccurate in this widely reported shootdown
of spencer's crap, so all he's got is brainless sniggering.
Your shit smear article is only worth flushing down the toilet with other shit. My time is more valuable than wasting it with leftist shit smear.

When you post something half ways intelligent... I'll say something about it..

Dr. Spencer happens to be a very highly respected award winning scientist.

Dr. Richard Spencer is a meteorologist... He's a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.

He is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award.

Spencer received a B.S. in atmospheric sciences from the University of Michigan in 1978 and his M.S. and Ph.D. in meteorology from the University of Wisconsin–Madison in 1980 and 1982. His doctoral thesis was titled, A case study of African wave structure and energetics during Atlantic transit.

After receiving his Ph.D. in 1982, Spencer worked for two years as a research scientist in the Space Science and Engineering Center at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. He then joined NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center as a visiting scientist in 1984, where he later became senior scientist for climate studies. After leaving NASA in 2001, Spencer has been a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). As well as his position at UAH, Spencer is currently the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite, a position he has held since 1994.

In 2001, he designed an algorithm to detect tropical cyclones and estimate their maximum sustained wind speed using the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU).

Spencer has been a member of several science teams: the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) Space Station Accommodations Analysis Study Team, Science Steering Group for TRMM, TOVS Pathfinder Working Group, NASA Headquarters Earth Science and Applications Advisory Subcommittee, and two National Research Council (NRC) study panels.

He is on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall Institute, and on the board of advisors of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

Spencer's research work is funded by NASA, NOAA, DOE, and the DOT as well as by Peabody Energy.


"ISNI 0000000122132141". isni.org. Retrieved 21 June 2016.
Fong, Jocelyn (27 January 2011). "Fox Tries To Debunk Global Warming, Fails Miserably". Media Matters for America. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
"Aqua Project Science". NASA. Archived from the original on 2013-02-16. Retrieved 2012-08-27.
Spencer, Roy W. (March 19, 2007). "STATEMENT TO THE COMMITTEE" (PDF). United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-03-28. Retrieved 2007-03-07.
Spencer, Roy Warren (1981). "A case study of African wave structure and energetics during Atlantic transit". University of Wisconsin–Madison. Retrieved 2012-08-27.
"Detecting Tropical Cyclones Using AMSU". NASA. Retrieved 2012-08-27.
Spencer, Roy W. and William D. Braswell (2001). "Atlantic Tropical Cyclone Monitoring with AMSU-A: Estimation of Maximum Sustained Wind Speeds". Monthly Weather Review. 129: 1518–1532. Bibcode:2001MWRv..129.1518S. doi:10.1175/1520-0493(2001)129<1518:ATCMWA>2.0.CO;2. Retrieved 2012-08-27.
"The Marshall Institute – Staff". George C. Marshall Institute. Archived from the original on July 12, 2012. Retrieved 2012-08-27.
"Cornwall Alliance Board of Advisors". Cornwall Alliance. Archived from the original on 2013-04-28. Retrieved 2013-04-03.
Unum
2018-11-11 15:29:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Catoni
Post by Unum
cartooni couldn't find anything inaccurate in this widely reported shootdown
of spencer's crap, so all he's got is brainless sniggering.
Your shit smear article is only worth flushing down the toilet with other shit. My time is more valuable than wasting it with leftist shit smear.
cartooni is just a stinking pile of hate and profanity.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roy_Spencer#By_climate_scientists_-_fatally_flawed_study

"Errors identified by climate scientists "...range from the trivial (using the
wrong units for the radiative flux anomaly), to the serious (treating clouds
as the cause of climate change, rather than resulting from day-to-day weather;
comparing a 10 year observational period with a 100 year model period and not
allowing for the spread in model outputs)."

"Within three days of the publication of Spencer & Braswell 2011, two climate
scientists (Kevin Trenberth & John Fasullo) repeated the analysis and showed
that the IPCC models are in agreement with the observations, thus refuting
Spencer & Braswell’s claims. An independent analysis by Andrew Dessler also
confirms the Trenberth & Fasullo result."

In Sept 2011 Remote Sensing editor-in-chief Wolfgang Wagner resigned, saying
that the paper should not have been published - that while "[peer review is]
supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false
claims (…) the paper by Spencer and Braswell that was recently published in
Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore
not have been published"
Wally W.
2018-11-11 16:07:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[current target] is just a stinking pile of hate and profanity.
Why would someone have a sensitive hate-detector?

How badly mis-calibrated might a hate-detector become with over-use?

[Ask Kymmie about the difference between accuracy an precision ... oh,
wait ... maybe ask 14.00000000000 other people instead.]

Why would someone feel a need to make frequent mentions of their
perceptions of hate in others?

https://www.2knowmyself.com/Why_we_see_in_others_the_things_we_hate_about_ourselves
JTEM is right
2018-11-11 17:35:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Catoni
Dr. Spencer happens to be a very highly respected award winning scientist.
But does it really matter?

I mean, never once has any hysterical "Global Warming"
freak even told us what the temperature is supposed to
be. And nobody has ever attempted to map out any
alternative to this "Global Warming" as "Climate Change"
is an inescapable fact of nature. And, finally, nobody
has made a halfway decent case that "Global Warming"
would even be bad! Yet, all the so called arguments
are based on the erroneous assumption that these things
have been established as fact.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/179940163328

R Kym Horsell
2018-11-11 07:39:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 13:25:42 -0800 (PST), Cantany
...
Post by Unum
Post by Catoni
Post by Unum
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roy_Spencer#By_climate_scientists_-_fatally_flawed_study
"SourceWatch"...LOL ha, ha, ha.......
cartooni couldn't find anything inaccurate in this widely reported shootdown
of spencer's crap, so all he's got is brainless sniggering.
There mere fact there's 97 pople(sic) saying one thing and a scientist
"audited" by Britebart saying the total opposite is enough for Mr Cartoony
to go apoplectic ovva da minority report.
In the future they will find the gene for that.
--
When it starts operation in September 2014 Ballerina's new electric
ferry, which is yet to be named, will carry foot passengers and
cyclists between 10 stops on a 50 minute route of the waterways of
Stockholm. It will operate throughout the year, completing eight round
trips per day. The batteries will be fully charged during the ferry's
overnight stay in the harbour with two partial charging sessions
during the course of the day.

To deliver the required duty, Saft is supplying its marine battery
systems with a total energy storage capacity of 500 kWh, at 650
V. Ordered in December 2013, the Li-ion cells for the battery systems
will be manufactured at Saft's facility at Nersac with delivery of the
entire energy storage systems units (ESSUs) in May.

-- http://www.saftbatteries.com/press/press-releases/saft-batteries-power-stockholm's-new-ballerina-electric-ferry
Wally W.
2018-11-11 16:14:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R Kym Horsell
Post by Unum
On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 13:25:42 -0800 (PST), Cantany
...
Post by Unum
Post by Catoni
Post by Unum
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roy_Spencer#By_climate_scientists_-_fatally_flawed_study
"SourceWatch"...LOL ha, ha, ha.......
cartooni couldn't find anything inaccurate in this widely reported shootdown
of spencer's crap, so all he's got is brainless sniggering.
There mere fact there's 97 pople(sic)
Look who is making a typo flame!
Post by R Kym Horsell
saying one thing and a scientist
"audited" by Britebart saying the total opposite is enough for Mr Cartoony
to go apoplectic ovva da minority report.
Shouldn't there be a typo flame for "ovva da"?

Of course not, because it is cute ... right?
Post by R Kym Horsell
In the future they will find the gene for that.
Someone already made an app for parroting error.
JTEM is right
2018-11-05 02:28:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
It wasn't a bad summer at all. No "Extreme"
weather.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/179774524513
Wally W.
2018-11-09 22:22:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 22:46:36 -0500, Unum wrote:

The subject line cart-before-the-horse (one would think a jackass
should know which comes first), greenie-speak bullshit.

Climate change is an effect, not a cause.

Some things drive weather.

The label for the local climate is inferred from long-term weather.

If a climate is changing, it must (by definition) have weather that is
"extreme" for the *old* climate but "normal" for the *new* climate.

How big must an industrial-strength irony meter be not to break when
people with such poor understandings of language and Nature
arrogantly, loudly, and stupidly proclaim, "***the*** science is
settled?"
Loading...