Global Warming is over.

[z31maniac]

Can you explain the graph to me? What does it represent exactly? And after you explain what it represents, let me know exactly how it justifies whatever your opinion is of it. I am curious if you even know what you are looking at. Also, assuming the source is the NOAA, why would you put any faith in the graph, considering the NOAA holds the position that global warming is anthropogenic?

I think he has misinterpreted the black line. lulz

[tjts1]

Don't mind me. Just checking to see if global warming is still over.
carry on

[Q5Quint]

you really need to research before you post

I am trying to find this chart on the noaa website- and help for the link?

I went to the website here and clicked on '
Historical
Global
Extremes

to try and find your chart....

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/extremes.html

and eventually it led me to .....

All I can find is a paper that says this:

There is evidence that some extremes have changed as a result of anthropogenic influences, including
increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. It is likely that anthropogenic influences have led
to warming of extreme daily minimum and maximum temperatures at the global scale. There is medium confidence
that anthropogenic influences have contributed to intensification of extreme precipitation at the global scale. It is
likely that there has been an anthropogenic influence on increasing extreme coastal high water due to an increase in
mean sea level. from 'MANAGING THE RISKS OF EXTREME
EVENTS AND DISASTERS TO ADVANCE
CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKER' IPCC

[gwb72tii]

Why would we do this yet again? You've made this kind of statement no less than a dozen times and every single time you ignore whatever replies you get.

You've cried wolf too many times. Why would anyone keep trying to convince you of anything when every post you make about this subject is so intellectually dishonest?

all you've done "brave" (you really need to change your name) is practice drive by trolling

impress all of us please and post up an intellectual comment of why a peer reviewed scientist is wrong

me thinks it will be a long wait

[nando]

peer reviewed blogger?

[cale]

all you've done "brave" (you really need to change your name) is practice drive by trolling

impress all of us please and post up an intellectual comment of why a peer reviewed scientist is wrong

me thinks it will be a long wait

Why, so you can ignore it like you ignore most replies which successfully pick apart and point out the flaws in your sources? Yea, that's worked so well in the past.

Old man is senile.

[BraveUlysses]

all you've done "brave" (you really need to change your name) is practice drive by trolling

impress all of us please and post up an intellectual comment of why a peer reviewed scientist is wrong

me thinks it will be a long wait

And what exactly are you contributing?

You're just mad that I won't play your shitty game and I'm vocal about calling you out for your bullshit.

[Fusion]

Since skeptics in this thread are not allowed to use terms such as "circle jerk" or "conspiracy blog" without being accused of being ignorant, trolls, idiots, senile, science haters, I would expect any further discussion related to gwb's link be a highly sophisticated explination of why the scientist working 40 years in the field is wrong.
Please proceed.

[herbivor]

all you've done "brave" (you really need to change your name) is practice drive by trolling

impress all of us please and post up an intellectual comment of why a peer reviewed scientist is wrong

me thinks it will be a long wait

Still waiting for your response about the graph you posted.

[rwh11385]

and in any case, hurricanes aren't the only example of extreme weather. How much data do you think the insurance companies have vs one chart that GWB has posted?

http://democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/sites/democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/files/documents/2012-09-25_ExtremeWeather_.pdf

Beyond the loss of life and impact on communities and livelihoods, severe weather has resulted in large economic costs. The number of natural disasters has increased steadily over the past thirty years10 with natural disasters in 2011 resulting in the most costly toll in history —$154 billion worth of worldwide losses from floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires, and other extreme weather events.11 In the United States alone, 2011 extreme weather events caused almost $60 billion in damages.12 This total does not include expenses associated with sickness or injuries triggered by the disasters. Given the number and severity of extreme events that have thus far occurred this year, weather-related costs in 2012 could equal or exceed those in 2011. According to Aon Benfield, a global reinsurance company, insured losses associated with natural disasters have totaled at least $22 billion through August 201213 without considering all of the summer’s wildfires and the drought which is expected to add billions of dollars more to the total.

Following the record breaking extreme weather of 2011, from the killer tornadoes in Joplin, Missouri to the devastation Hurricane Irene brought to Vermont, many Americans are connecting these events with human-induced global warming. After all, nine of the top ten warmest years globally have occurred since 2000. This August was the 36th consecutive August and 330th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average.14 In other words, there has not been a month cooler than the 20th century global average since February 1985.

Scientists have been investigating the link between extreme weather events and man-made global warming for years. They now generally agree that global warming pollution plays a role, along with natural factors such as El Niño or La Niña, in shifting the odds toward extreme events.15 In fact, NOAA recently concluded, after looking through 50 years of weather data, that droughts like the record 2011 Texas drought was made "roughly 20 times more likely" because of global warming. 16 Indeed, observations have shown that certain extremes—high heat, heavy precipitation and floods, duration and intensity of droughts and extremes related to higher sea levels—have increased over the last half of the century.17

Global warming has stacked the deck with extra jokers, making some weather events more frequent and severe and increasing the chances of an event far outside the norm.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/2012-ranks-as-second-most-disastrous-year-since-1980-15233

With about six weeks remaining in the year, there have already been 11 natural disasters that have cost $1 billion or more in damage, bringing 2012 to second place on the list of top billion-dollar disaster years. The current record-holder is 2011, when there were 14 billion-dollar disasters. The widespread and intense drought — which as of Nov. 6 still covered at least 60 percent of the lower 48 states — and Hurricane Sandy are expected to go down in history as two of the most costly weather-related disasters since 1980.

Here's a link to NOAA extreme climate index: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph

Billion dollar climate disasters: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/events

Prelim info on 2012: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/prelim...climate-events

Economic losses for two events, Sandy and the yearlong drought, are the big drivers this year in terms of costs and are still being calculated. It will take months to develop a final, reliable estimate for each. Given how big these events are likely to be, NOAA estimates 2012 will surpass 2011 (exceeding $60 billion, CPI-adjusted to 2012 dollars) in terms of aggregate costs for annual billion-dollar disasters, even with fewer number of billion-dollar disasters. The greatest annual loss to date was 2005 when Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma and Dennis struck Florida and the Gulf Coast states (costs exceeded $187 billion, CPI-adjusted to 2012 dollars).

[rwh11385]

you really need to research before you post

[IMGxx]http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b36/gwb72tii/extreme.gif[/IMGxx]

Maybe you should evaluate if you are being too narrow and simple-minded and cherry picking data points while missing the big picture that nando was referring to.



Simply looking at Hurricanes does not counter the costs of extreme climate in which nando mentioned, but being capable of researching and finding information would allow one to judge if what he said had a factual and logical basis. GWB's habit of ignoring facts by cherry picking with a narrow view and then putting his hands over his ears is typical, much like his focus on southern Sea Ice while ignoring all other data about global ice.

Wouldn't it be better to have a discussion of information in which all data is considered? Or should we just stick to the cherry picks of former TV weather people and a financial advisor?

[gwb72tii]

Still waiting for your response about the graph you posted.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/cei/step6.ytd.gif

[herbivor]

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/c.../step6.ytd.gif

Thanks for nothing.

[salvuhdor]

I didn't even read any of this. But I'll just drop this knowledge hopefully it will have something to do with the post.

1) Anthropogenic global warming does not exist. Although bad air quality does and ancient sunlight does not last forever. (ancient sunlight is natural resources Earth has stored that Humans currently abuse). Humans do not change the Earths Temperature by for than .01% of one tenth of a degree in Fahrenheit.

2) C02 levels were higher in the earliers days of Earth, the Earth cycles through phases. (What melted the ice age? Were Mammoths drivings Hummers?)

3) Al Gore is an idiot in some parts. *If you show me a graph make sure it has more than 100 years dating back please. Earth is approx. 4-5 billion years old.

I just covered Global Warming.

[tjts1]

Whoever taught you how to write deserves a good swift kick in the nuts.