Global Warming is over.

[rwh11385]

maybe we need to start a new thread under GLOBAL COOLING

and no, these records are not/were not predicted with current/past mathematical climate computer models (which cannot predict much of anything)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/3...early-10-to-1/

Nice cherry picking. Did Mr. Watts not pay attention to June?

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2013/07/15/june-2013-second-hottest-on-record-globally/

For the globe overall, last month turned out to be the second warmest June on record, data from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies show.

June of 1998, an intense El Nino year, retains the title for the hottest such month since record keeping began in 1880.

Of course, if you wanted to mislead a bunch of ignorant readers who were too lazy to look up the past month or you know, learn anything at all about science beyond the opinion of a college dropout... I guess Mr. Watts does an alright job extorting logical fallacies. You certainly ate it up, preferring to claim global cooling based on July's temperatures in the USA alone instead of paying any attention to any question of your assumptions of energy disappearing or the news regarding near record temperature globally in June.

i found this and it reminds me of you mr brave, among others

“Calvin: The more you know, the harder it is to take decisive action.
Once you are informed, you start seeing complexities and shades of gray.
You realize nothing is as clear as it first appears. Ultimately, knowledge is paralyzing.
Being a man of action, I cannot afford to take that risk.

Hobbes: You're ignorant, but at least you act on it.”
― Bill Watterson, The Authoritative Calvin And Hobbes

If that is your philosophy in life, then I guess you being ignorant / simplistic makes sense. Instead of seeking to be educated about the subject you are discussing, you latch onto an assumption and protect yourself from any knowledge that may challenge your confirmation bias. People who aren't as lazy as you seek out learning and tackle the complexities of the world through science, not avoiding them.

But I'm still quite unsure why you even participate in such discussions if you are so vastly ignorant about them?


Here's a Good Reads quote that applies well to you: http://www.goodreads.com/author/quot...7.Isaac_Asimov

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
― Isaac Asimov

[herbivor]

Man I thought he gave up. I'll drum up those before and after pictures I took of the glacier I photographed in Iceland in 2001 and 2013. Considering it's been cooling since June of 1998 it confounds me that the glacier has receded, shrank and now has a large lake at the end of it.

[gwb72tii]

i never give up

it's hilarious frankly the fits you guyz throw when your "consensus" cannot explain the data, and i will continue to post it when i can find it.

and frankly rdub - you are a living example of why college doesn't mean much to some

[kronus]

you are a living example of why college doesn't mean much to some

you are a living example of why it does, to others

[rwh11385]

i never give up

it's hilarious frankly the fits you guyz throw when your "consensus" cannot explain the data, and i will continue to post it when i can find it.

and frankly rdub - you are a living example of why college doesn't mean much to some

You never give up, regardless of how terribly ignorant you are? That's not something to be proud of, that's just sad on your part. You just keep repeating logical fallacies and the same broken argument. Instead of posting up someone else's ideas, why not discuss the topic based on your understanding - or not at all.

I find it telling that you repeatedly ignore basic questions of your position and and refuse to defend your views with any support beyond linking to crackpots. Disregard the consensus, disregard politics, disregard the weather... and for a whole minute think to yourself why the planet can absorb more energy than it expels and NOT get any warmer. Stick to what is absolutely known and understood as a scientific law, the conservation of energy, and explain how your assumptions can possibly fit that.

If you, again, cannot find the guts to explain how it is possible, then as you always have demonstrated that you are nothing but an uneducated troll stubbornly continuing to discuss a topic you are clueless about.


And does your distaste for college (or soreness from your own experience) have much to do with this discussion? Does talking down about education make your fallacies any more valid against facts, science, or logic? Or like kronus said, does it highlight your embrace of anti-intellectualism and the belief that your ignorance is just as good as another's knowledge and understanding?

[Q5Quint]

Once again the 'whatsupwiththat' website is a bastion of truth facing a sea of liberal lies!

Meanwhile the gay communist libtard news outlet, the new york times, reports exactly the opposite:

"Global Temperatures Highest in 4,000 Years"

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/sc...tudy-says.html

Of course, as we all know, the new york times as well as oregon state university are both being controlled by the dark lord Obama himself. Is there no safe place from his power? His eyes see all like a black lord sauron.


http://www.sciencemag.org/content/33.../1198.abstract

Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (<5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. This cooling is largely associated with ~2°C change in the North Atlantic. Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios.

THANKS OBAMA!!!

[tjts1]

For Insurers, No Doubts on Climate Change

From Hurricane Sandy’s devastating blow to the Northeast to the protracted drought that hit the Midwest Corn Belt, natural catastrophes across the United States pounded insurers last year, generating $35 billion in privately insured property losses, $11 billion more than the average over the last decade.

And the industry expects the situation will get worse. “Numerous studies assume a rise in summer drought periods in North America in the future and an increasing probability of severe cyclones relatively far north along the U.S. East Coast in the long term,” said Peter Höppe, who heads Geo Risks Research at the reinsurance giant Munich Re. “The rise in sea level caused by climate change will further increase the risk of storm surge.” Most insurers, including the reinsurance companies that bear much of the ultimate risk in the industry, have little time for the arguments heard in some right-wing circles that climate change isn’t happening, and are quite comfortable with the scientific consensus that burning fossil fuels is the main culprit of global warming.

“Insurance is heavily dependent on scientific thought,” Frank Nutter, president of the Reinsurance Association of America, told me last week. “It is not as amenable to politicized scientific thought.”

Last week, scientists announced that the concentration of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere had reached 400 parts per million — its highest level in at least three million years, before humans appeared on the scene. Back then, mastodons roamed the earth, the polar ice caps were smaller and the sea level was as much as 60 to 80 feet higher.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/bu...nted=all&_r=1&

[Thizzelle]

global warming Fuck YEAH

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/12/10/antarctica-cold-record/3950019/

[nando]

yeah, maybe you didn't read the part about they've never measured some of these spots before, so we don't know how cold they may have been in the past. for all we know it could have been 20 degrees colder 100 years ago.

[rwh11385]

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2013/12/31/u-s--homes-using-far-less-power.html

Because of more energy-efficient housing, appliances and gadgets, power usage is on track to decline in 2013 for the third year in a row, to 10,819 kilowatt-hours per household, says the Energy Information Administration.

That’s the lowest level since 2001, when households averaged 10,535 kwh. And the drop has occurred even though our lives are more electrified.

Here’s a look at what has changed since the last time consumption was so low.

Better homes: In the early 2000s, as energy prices rose, more states adopted or toughened building codes to force builders to better seal homes so heat or air-conditioned air doesn’t seep out so fast. That means newer homes waste less energy.

Also, insulated windows and other building technologies have dropped in price, making retrofits of existing homes more affordable. In the wake of the financial crisis, billions of dollars in Recovery Act funding was directed toward home-efficiency programs.

Better gadgets: Big appliances such as refrigerators and air conditioners have gotten more efficient thanks to federal energy standards that get stricter every few years as technology evolves.

A typical room air conditioner — one of the biggest power hogs in the home — uses 20 percent less electricity per hour of full operation than it did in 2001, said the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers.

Central air conditioners, refrigerators, dishwashers, water heaters, washing machines and dryers also have become more efficient.

Other devices are using less juice, too. Some 40-inch LED televisions bought today use 80 percent less power than the cathode-ray-tube televisions of the past. Some use only $8 worth of electricity over a year when used five hours a day — less than a 60-watt incandescent bulb would use.

Those incandescent light bulbs are being replaced with compact fluorescent bulbs and LEDs that use 70 to 80 percent less power.

The move to mobile also is helping. It costs $1.36 to power an iPad for a year, compared with $28.21 for a desktop computer, says the Electric Power Research Institute.

On the other hand: We are using more devices, and that is offsetting what would otherwise be a more-dramatic reduction in power consumption.

DVRs spin at all hours of the day, often under more than one television in a home. Game consoles are getting more sophisticated to process better graphics and connect with other players, and therefore use more power.

Still, Jennifer Amman, the buildings program director for the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, says she is encouraged.

“It’s great to see this movement, to see the shift in the national numbers,” she said. “I expect we’ll see greater improvement over time. There is so much more that can be done.”

The Energy Department predicts average residential electricity use per customer will fall again in 2014, by 1 percent.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/1...as-101488.html

Since 2008, coal has dropped from nearly half the U.S. power market to about 37 percent. In the next several years, industry analysts say, hundreds of older coal-fired units will power down for good.

But increasingly efficient homes, office buildings and factories and a fall in demand for electricity are big reasons why power companies don’t need to build replacements right away — possibly for another two decades.
Even in coal-heavy Kentucky, utilities have decided that at times, closing a big coal plant is the least costly option. And many customers won’t even notice that the plants are gone.

In many states, power suppliers have ramped up previously underused natural-gas-fired power plants to take the place of the shuttered coal plants. Increasing numbers of wind, solar, geothermal and hydropower projects are coming online too, though not nearly enough to make up for the lost capacity.

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/greenblog/2013/12/closures_of_coal_power_plants.html

The Sierra Club counted 150 coal plant closure announcements since 2010. The Union of Concerned Scientists, in a report this month, puts the numbers at 138 coal plants closed since 2011, 150 more likely in the “near future,” and 329 additional plants it identified as “ripe for retirement.”

Whatever the exact number, the trend is clear. The lights of coal-powered electricity plants are flickering off around the country, victims of cheaper natural gas, growing renewable energy, conservation, and stricter demands to curb climate-changing pollution.

Sounds good, unless you are sad about potentially less West Virginians getting black lung.

[BraveUlysses]

rwh don't forget this nugget that came out a couple of weeks ago

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/20/conservative-groups-1bn-against-climate-change

Conservative groups may have spent up to $1bn a year on the effort to deny science and oppose action on climate change, according to the first extensive study into the anatomy of the anti-climate effort.

The anti-climate effort has been largely underwritten by conservative billionaires, often working through secretive funding networks. They have displaced corporations as the prime supporters of 91 think tanks, advocacy groups and industry associations which have worked to block action on climate change. Such financial support has hardened conservative opposition to climate policy, ultimately dooming any chances of action from Congress to cut greenhouse gas emissions that are warming the planet, the study found.

“I call it the climate-change counter movement,” said the author of the study, Drexel University sociologist Robert Brulle. “It is not just a couple of rogue individuals doing this. This is a large-scale political effort.”

Brulle's study, published on Friday in the journal Climatic Change, offers the most definitive exposure to date of the political and financial forces blocking American action on climate change. Still, there are big gaps.

It was not always possible to separate funds designated strictly for climate-change work from overall budgets, Brulle said. “Since the majority of the organizations are multiple focus organizations, not all of this income was devoted to climate change activities.”

Some of the think tanks on Brulle's list – such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) – said they had no institutional position on climate change and did not control the output of their scholars. In addition, Brulle acknowledged that he was unable to uncover the full extent of funding sources to the effort to oppose action on climate change. About three-quarters of the funds were routed through trusts or other mechanisms that assure anonymity to donors – a trend Brulle described as disturbing and a threat to democracy.

“This is how wealthy individuals or corporations translate their economic power into political and cultural power,” he said. “They have their profits and they hire people to write books that say climate change is not real. They hire people to go on TV and say climate change is not real. It ends up that people without economic power don't have the same size voice as the people who have economic power, and so it ends up distorting democracy.

“That is the bottom line here. These are unaccountable organisations deciding what our politics should be. They put their thumbs on the scale … It is more one dollar one vote than one person one vote.”
Top-tier conservative think tanks

The vast majority of the 91 groups on Brulle's list – 79% – were registered as charitable organisations and enjoyed considerable tax breaks. Those 91 groups included trade organisations, think tanks and campaign groups. The groups collectively received more than $7bn over the eight years of Brulle's study – or about $900m a year from 2003 to 2010. Conservative think tanks and advocacy groups occupied the core of that effort.

The funding was dispersed to top-tier conservative think tanks in Washington, such as the AEI and Heritage Foundation, which focus on a range of issues, as well as more obscure organisations such as the Atlas Economic Research Foundation and the John Locke Foundation.

Funding also went to groups that took on climate change denial as a core mission – such as the Heartland Institute, which held regular conclaves dedicated to undermining the United Nations climate panel's reports, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which tried and failed to prosecute a climate scientist, Michael Mann, for academic fraud.

AEI was by far the top recipient of such funds, receiving 16% of total funding over the eight years, or $86.7m. Heartland Institute, in contrast, received just 3% of the total, $16.7m. There was also generous support to Americans for Prosperity, the advocacy group affiliated with the conservative Koch billionaires, which received $22.7m.
'It won't be going to liberals'

Brulle admits, however, that he was far less successful in uncovering the sources of funding for the counter-climate movement. About 75% of such funding sources remain shrouded in secrecy, with wealthy conservatives routing their donations through a system of trusts which guarantee anonymity.

The leading venue for those underground donations was the Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund, which alone accounted for 25% of funding of the groups opposed to climate action. An investigation by the Guardian last February found that the Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund had distributed nearly $120m to more than 100 anti-climate groups from 2002-2010. The Donors group has now displaced such previous prominent supporters of the climate denial movement as the Koch-affiliated foundations and corporations like Exxon Mobil, Brulle said.

Other conservative foundations funding climate denial efforts include: the Searle Freedom Trust, the John William Pope Foundation, the Howard Charitable Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation, which also promote a free-market approach on other issues.

A number of the groups on Brulle's list – both as funders and recipients – refused to comment on his findings or disputed his contention that they were part of a movement to block action on climate change.

Whitney Ball, the president of the Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund, said the organisation had no say in deciding which projects would receive funding. However, Ball told the Guardian last February that Donors offered funders the assurance their money would never go to Greenpeace. “It won't be going to liberals,” she said at that time.

“We do not otherwise drive the selection of grantees, nor do we conduct in-depth analyses of projects or grantees unless an account holder specifically requests that service,” Ball said in an email. “Neither Donors Trust nor Donors Capital Fund as institutions take positions with respect to any issue advocated by its grantees.”

Recipients of the funds also disputed the assertion they were part of a larger effort to undermine climate science or block action on climate change.

“Each of the scholars that work on any particular issue speaks for his or hers own work,” said Judy Mayka Stecker, director of media relations at AEI, in an email. She went on to write, however, that most of the AEI scholars who have worked on energy and climate change have moved on and would be unavailable to comment.

David Kreutzer, an energy and climate change fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said Brulle was unfairly conflating climate denial with opposition to policies that would require industry reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

“We do believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that man-made emissions will lead to some warming,” said David Kreutzer, an energy and climate-change fellow at the Heritage Foundation. “We are opposed to mandatory greenhouse gas emissions cuts.”

He said many conservatives saw a carbon tax, cap-and-trade and other climate policies as a government takeover by stealth.

“What we are not interested in doing is a huge shift of power to the government under the guise of preventing some climate problem,” he said.

The Hoover Institution, which received about $45m, claimed to produce no work on climate change – while displaying on its website an article by a Hoover research fellow on an August 2013 Hoover poll on economic, energy and environmental issues.

"Hoover has no institutional initiatives on climate change,” a spokeswoman, Eryn Witcher, wrote in an email. “Individual Hoover fellows research and write on a wide variety of topics of their own choosing, but we're not aware of any who are working in that field at this time, nor are we aware of any gifts or grants that have been received for that purpose.”

In the article, the Hoover fellow, Jeremy Carl, who works extensively on energy and climate issues, discussed climate change and fracking, concluding: “Many Democrats and liberals are in denial when it comes to reality on energy and climate policy, endorsing both science and political fiction.”

• This headline on this article was amended on 21 December 2013 to reflect that not all the $1bn referred to will have funded climate change work.

i never give up

[Q5Quint]

400 parts per million party anyone? Looks like this year or next is the big year.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

[rwh11385]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...tists-say.html

Globally, according to figures released in December by the United States National Climatic Data Center, 2013 was set to be the fourth hottest year in 134 years of records behind 2010, 2005 and 1998.

Meteorologists said it was the hottest year on record for a non-El Niño year.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-...nthly-releases

Global
December/Annual Release: 21 January 2014, 11:00 AM EST

So look forward to that.

In the meantime, there's a nice chart in here:
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/t...st-years-16844

[CorvallisBMW]

I'm just hoping for some snow, we're at <35% of our avg snowpack for this time of year...

[mrsleeve]

400 parts per million party anyone? Looks like this year or next is the big year.


http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

I think I might be more worried about all the CS137 floating its way over from Japan than a little CO2