Print

[SMASH]

Please explain how my post is not relevent to climate change.
I am tired of your personal attacks, if you haven't noticed.

Cause you found it first.

[SMASH]

See the big orange thing above the bird?

It makes thing warm.

It's been doing it for a long time.

[jbs49238]

FB,

LOL.... REALLY?  ARE YOU SERIOUS?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsoon

I will skip to the pertinant text.

North America
 
The North American monsoon (NAM) occurs from late June or early July into September, originating over Mexico and spreading into the southwest United States by mid-July. It affects Mexico along the Sierra Madre Occidental as well as Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, West Texas and California. It pushes as far west as the Peninsular Ranges and Transverse Ranges of Southern California, but rarely reaches the coastal strip (a wall of desert thunderstorms only a half-hour's drive away is a common summer sight from the sunny skies along the coast during the monsoon). The North American monsoon is known to many as the Summer, Southwest, Mexican or Arizona monsoon.[23][24] It is also sometimes called the Desert monsoon as a large part of the affected area are the Mojave and Sonoran deserts

HOLY JESUS CHIRST!!!!!  LAS VEGAS GOT A HALF INCH OF RAIN!  MUST BE F-ING CLIMATE CHANGE!

OR NOT!

Try harder!!!!!!... noaa.gov is also saved as one of my "favorites".

It snows in Vegas occasionally too!  That will not be the result of climate change either, just so we can get out ahead of yet another ridiculous post!

[old salt]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ipcc_admits_its_past_reports_were_junk.html

I keep wanting to believe it's settled.  Yet, I keep finding articles like this.  Plus, no one can tell me what the cost will be to 'fix' the problem, who's gonna pay for it, and how we'll know the 'fix' worked.

From the article:

In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.

In other words: authors are selected from a "club" of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.


Another problem documented by the IAC is the use of phony "confidence intervals" and estimates of "certainty" in the Summary for Policy Makers (pp. 27-34).  Those of us who study the IPCC reports knew this was make-believe when we first saw it in 2007.  Work by J. Scott Armstrong on the science of forecasting makes it clear that scientists cannot simply gather around a table and vote on how confident they are about some prediction, and then affix a number to it such as "80% confident."  Yet that is how the IPCC proceeds.

The IAC authors say it is "not an appropriate way to characterize uncertainty" (p. 34), a huge understatement.  Unfortunately, the IAC authors recommend an equally fraudulent substitute, called "level of understanding scale," which is more mush-mouth for "consensus."

[Baby Hitler]

Ice melt found across 97 percent of Greenland, satellites show


Three satellites found that 97 percent of Greenland -- the land mass second only to Antarctica for its volume of ice -- underwent a thaw never before seen in 33 years of satellite tracking, NASA reported Tuesday.

Satellite experts at first didn't trust their readings, especially since they showed an incredible acceleration. Over four days, Greenland's ice sheet -- which covers 683,000 square miles -- went from 40 percent in thaw to nearly entirely in thaw.

"This was so extraordinary that at first I questioned the result: Was this real or was it due to a data error?" Son Nghiem of NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab in Pasadena, Calif., said in NASA's statement about the findings.

Scientists on the ground in Greenland had been reporting an unusually warm summer thaw, including damage at a snow airfield and strong runoff threatening a bridge, Tom Wagner, who manages NASA's ice research programs, told NBC News.

Ice cores from Greenland's highest region do reveal that such island-wide thaws have happened every 150 years or so, at least over the last few thousand years, but the fear now is that it might occur much more frequently due to warming sea and air temperatures.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/24/12927340-ice-melt-found-across-97-percent-of-greenland-satellites-show?lite

[ducksoup]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ipcc_admits_its_past_reports_were_junk.html

I keep wanting to believe it's settled.  Yet, I keep finding articles like this.  Plus, no one can tell me what the cost will be to 'fix' the problem, who's gonna pay for it, and how we'll know the 'fix' worked.

From the article:

In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.

In other words: authors are selected from a "club" of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.


Another problem documented by the IAC is the use of phony "confidence intervals" and estimates of "certainty" in the Summary for Policy Makers (pp. 27-34).  Those of us who study the IPCC reports knew this was make-believe when we first saw it in 2007.  Work by J. Scott Armstrong on the science of forecasting makes it clear that scientists cannot simply gather around a table and vote on how confident they are about some prediction, and then affix a number to it such as "80% confident."  Yet that is how the IPCC proceeds.

The IAC authors say it is "not an appropriate way to characterize uncertainty" (p. 34), a huge understatement.  Unfortunately, the IAC authors recommend an equally fraudulent substitute, called "level of understanding scale," which is more mush-mouth for "consensus."

From your cited article...

.B. A reader reported being unable to find my IAC quotations in the IAC report. I checked and discovered that the version of the IAC report I cite was a "pre-publication version" posted online at the time the report was first announced.

That was the only version of the IAC report available when I wrote about it at the time it was released, on 8/31/2010. I confess, I pulled up that unpublished essay and modified it when the IPCC issued its news release some two weeks ago, creating the article that appears here at American Thinker. It did not occur to me that the final version of the report would differ so much from the pre-publication version as to cause this problem.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ipcc_admits_its_past_reports_were_junk.html#ixzz21eqGsxVw

[eriemermaid]

Still no climate change in my yard.  The grass is yellow, the ground is cracked and the weeds are growing.     How long has it been since we have had a good rain?

[livewire]

Still no climate change in my yard.  The grass is yellow, the ground is cracked and the weeds are growing.     How long has it been since we have had a good rain?

It's been over three months for me, Erie.  Hopefully we will get some rain tomorrow.

[Baby Hitler]

It's been over three months for me, Erie.  Hopefully we will get some rain tomorrow.

I know of a few fields that have constant irrigation and it looks like the plants there belong in the Amazon rain forest, however, I shudder to think about their electric bill for pumping all that water. I'm sure the skyrocketing grain prices will help them out though.

[Baby Hitler]

[Baby Hitler]

Why The Recent Extreme Heat Wave Is About To Become Permanent

1800 high temperatures broken in 7 days

Oh, 47 seconds in, you have to see the SUV flying through the air because the heat caused the highway to buckle.

Watching the Derecho go from Chicago to the eastern sea board was pretty cool too.

40,000 daily heat records broken so far this year. More than 2 times all of last year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0NrS2L6KcE

Welcome to the rest of our lives.

[Flanders]

So if we don't surpass these records next year does that mean that global warming ended?

[family man]

I remember how hot and dry it was in the summer of 1988. Then in 1992 it was cool and rainy. All this talk about the end of the world and hot temps are here forever is nonsense.

[old salt]

Good catch Duck.  Does this make the rest of the article illegitimate?

Shoot the messenger. The heck with the message.

...
Finally, the IAC noted, "the lack of a conflict of interest and disclosure policy for IPCC leaders and Lead Authors was a concern raised by a number of individuals who were interviewed by the Committee or provided written input" as well as "the practice of scientists responsible for writing IPCC assessments reviewing their own work.  The Committee did not investigate the basis of these claims, which is beyond the mandate of this review" (p. 46).

Too bad, because these are both big issues in light of recent revelations that a majority of the authors and contributors to some chapters of the IPCC reports are environmental activists, not scientists at all.  That's a structural problem with the IPCC that could dwarf the big problems already reported.

So on June 27, nearly two years after these bombshells fell (without so much as a raised eyebrow by the mainstream media in the U.S. -- go ahead and try Googling it), the IPCC admits that it was all true and promises to do better for its next report.  Nothing to see here...keep on moving.



Besides, how many of us have wished for a warm 75-80 degree Christmas?  I can't wait!

From your cited article...

.B. A reader reported being unable to find my IAC quotations in the IAC report. I checked and discovered that the version of the IAC report I cite was a "pre-publication version" posted online at the time the report was first announced.

That was the only version of the IAC report available when I wrote about it at the time it was released, on 8/31/2010. I confess, I pulled up that unpublished essay and modified it when the IPCC issued its news release some two weeks ago, creating the article that appears here at American Thinker. It did not occur to me that the final version of the report would differ so much from the pre-publication version as to cause this problem.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ipcc_admits_its_past_reports_were_junk.html#ixzz21eqGsxVw

[old salt]

Blasphemy!  You climate denier you.  Give us (whoever us may be) all your money so we can fix (i.e. make worse) this imaginary problem with unworkable solutions.

I remember how hot and dry it was in the summer of 1988. Then in 1992 it was cool and rainy. All this talk about the end of the world and hot temps are here forever is nonsense.