OMG is this right?

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Care to cite some recent numbers....and not Mother Jones or Huffpo. I think you're behind the curve. Man made global warming is losing supporters as the computer models fail and the man made finagle and fudge factors and being discovered.

You won't like this one either, judy.
http://www.climatecentral.org/

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

http://www.climatecentral.org/

Get your head out of the sand, eehbuuhhhrr and do some reading. Get ya momma to set you on her lap and read it to you...


I Hope The IPCC Is Correct About Warming Because Cooling Is a Bigger Problem

Guest Blogger / 4 hours ago March 19, 2016

Guest opinion; Dr. Tim Ball

Mae West famously said,

“I’ve been rich, and I’ve been poor. Believe me, rich is better.

As a historical climatologist, I can paraphrase that to say about climate,

“It’s been warm, and it’s been cold. Believe me, warm is better.”

I think the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claim that human CO2 is causing warming is wrong. They created the result they wanted, which wasn’t designed to deal with warming but to stop economic development and reduce the population. They selected the data and mechanisms necessary to prove their hypothesis and manipulated the data where necessary, including rewriting climate history. The wider evidence, which is only examined when you move outside their limited definition of climate change, is that the world is cooling.

The major rewrite of history involved elimination of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). One of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) gang told David Deming in an email that it was necessary to get rid of the MWP. The reason, although not expressed in the email, was because they were telling people that the latter part of the 20th century was the warmest ever. It wasn’t by any measure, from the warm of the MWP to the prolonged warmer period of the Holocene Optimum. The MWP was the most immediate threat to their narrative because it was within a time period people could grasp. They could relate to the idea that Vikings sailed in Arctic waters that are permanent pack-ice today. There was also the graph (Figure 7c) in the first IPCC Report in 1990 that contradicted their claim – it had to go.

A measure of the threat they saw is reflected in the viciousness of the attack on the historical evidence of the existence of the MWP produced in 2003 by Soon and Baliunas in “Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1,000 years.” A couple of examples illustrate the existence of the MWP but also the benefits of a warmer world.

Scottish historians identify the 12th century as the golden age. As one historian explains

During the reign of David I (1124 – 1153) many Normans came to live in Scotland. Dioceses were organised for bishops and new monasteries were founded. Government was reformed. Moreover, in the 12th century many towns or burghs were founded in Scotland and trade flourished. David I was the first Scottish king to found mints and issue his own coins.

The main reason for the growth was increased food production due to warmer weather. Warmer conditions began in the 10th century and began to cool by the 13th century. The impact of the cooling on limits to agriculture indicate what was lost. Martin Parry, who later became a central figure in the IPCC, studied the impact of cooling on different agricultural regions when that was the concern in the1970s. Figure 1 shows the probability of harvest failure in southeast Scotland (Parry 1976). Vertical change in the limits to agriculture seems small, but the horizontal gradient means large areas are lost as illustrated in Figure 2.




Figure 1

Figure 2 shows the extent of the land cultivated before 1300 AD and the amount lost at the onset of the Little Ice Age (LIA).



Figure 2

You can look around the world at societies that blossomed into civilizations during the Medieval Warm Period. As Jean Grove said in the introduction to her thorough and detailed book “The Little Ice Age.”



For several hundred years’ climatic conditions in Europe had been kind; there were few poor harvests and famines were infrequent.” “Grain was grown in Iceland and even in Greenland; the northern fisheries flourished and in mainland Europe vineyards were in production 500 km north of their present limits.”

An important point to remember is that Polar Bears, the animal Al Gore and his alarmist gang chose as the canary in the Arctic, survived the entire MWP.

The IPCC set out to prove human CO2 was causing global warming. They achieved this by manipulation and deception, but it meant nothing if they didn’t also ‘prove’ that warming is a potential disaster. The IPCC structure involved four stages. Working Group (WG) I, II, III and the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) were all carefully designed to blend predetermined science with the threat it posed to the planet and humanity.

WG I, the Physical Science Basis Report, provides the proof that human CO2 is causing warming. That became the unchallenged assumption for WG II, the Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Report. This Report became the source of the almost endless stories of the negative impacts of warming. In fact, it was a cost/benefits study without consideration of the benefits. It became the basis for WG III’s Mitigation of Climate Change Report that identified the costs and policies politicians needed to exact from the citizens. Then, ostensibly to make it easier for politicians, they produced the Summary for Policymakers. In fact, it made it more difficult because the IPCC released the SPM to the public and the media with all its exaggerations. The public pressure fuelled by the media left politicians with no option. As official IPCC reviewer, David Wojick said,

Glaring omissions are only glaring to experts, so the “policymakers”—including the press and the public—who read the SPM will not realize they are being told only one side of a story. But the scientists who drafted the SPM know the truth, as revealed by the sometimes artful way they conceal it.

What is systematically omitted from the SPM are precisely the uncertainties and positive counter evidence that might negate the human interference theory. Instead of assessing these objections, the Summary confidently asserts just those findings that support its case. In short, this is advocacy, not assessment.

The IPCC also guaranteed the prediction of increasing CO2 and its negative impact using economic models deliberately constructed for a predetermined outcome, just like the climate models.

READ THE TRUTH eehhbuhhrrrr-> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/1...igger-problem/

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Get your head out of the sand, eehbuuhhhrr and do some reading. Get ya momma to set you on her lap and read it to you...


I Hope The IPCC Is Correct About Warming Because Cooling Is a Bigger Problem

Guest Blogger / 4 hours ago March 19, 2016


READ THE TRUTH eehhbuhhrrrr-> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/1...igger-problem/

LOL keep your 4% head buried whiffy.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

http://www.climatecentral.org/

0zombehhurrrr... Check it out... and if you are smart, you will read the comments, 0zombbehhuurrrr... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/1...ea-level-rise/

Worldwide tide gauge comparisons show no acceleration in sea level rise

Guest essay by Albert Parker

Just in case somebody could be interested in understanding if the climate scientists are telling us the truth about sea level acceleleration, there is still the opportunity to verify by using the tide gauge data in the PSMSL data base.

The tide gauges measure the relative sea level in many locations worldwide, mostly in northern Europe and North America, in the best cases since the mid-late 1800s, and are therefore the best source of information to understand what is going on…

The PSMSL data base include the time series of the monthly average mean sea levels recorded by every tide gauge…

· Go to http://www.psmsl.org/products/trends

· Use as start year 1900 and end year 1975 and then zoom and window over one selected area, for example Europe (but the United States and Canada or Australia and New Zealand work fine as well …)

· These were the relative sea level rates of rises about Europe in 1975 – this is a print screen of today 17 March 2016



· The above relative rates of rise are obtained by linearly fitting all the monthly average mean sea level data 1900 to 1975. The relative rate of rise is the slope of the fitting line.

· Now, let see what happened during the last 40 years …. Just move the end year to 2014 …

· These are the relative sea level rates of rises about Europe in 2014 – this is a print screen in March 2016



· The above relative rates of rise are obtained by linearly fitting all the monthly average mean sea level data 1900 to 2014.

· Surprise, surprise, no major changes …..

· Do you spot any significant change?

· Those that are claiming the sea levels are rising sharply than ever before at an accelerating rate are simply not telling the truth.

· This may realize (for now) downloading and analyzing the PSMSL data, or even analyzing the data online.

· In a few years’ time, also this data base will be corrupted and the truly measured data will be replaced by computations or reconstructions.



· Below same results for the US and Canada, plus Australia and New Zealand … just in case …

[cptjohnstone]

if you are smart

this is where you lost him, a sad sad situation where he gets no positive postings and he is flattered

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

0zombehhurrrr... Check it out... and if you are smart, you will read the comments, 0zombbehhuurrrr... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/1...ea-level-rise/

Worldwide tide gauge comparisons show no acceleration in sea level rise

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/slt...sltrends.shtml
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/...ea-level-rise/

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by cptjohnstone

this is where you lost him, a sad sad situation where he gets no positive postings and he is flattered

What say hillbilly?

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/...161140419.html

Al Jazeera? As a source? Really, LittleLiberalEva?


"Climate change" is simply the current scare to convince people that the government needs more control and the people need less freedom. These phony statistics can sway the weaker minded, like LittleLiberalEva. But it is still a scam.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

LOL keep your 4% head buried whiffy.

How about that citation. No, not that blog you cited. Something real and recent.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Al Jazeera? As a source? Really, LittleLiberalEva?
Anything to upset you tick turds.

"Climate change" is simply the current scare to convince people that the government needs more control and the people need less freedom. These phony statistics can sway the weaker minded, like LittleLiberalEva. But it is still a scam.

LMAO, sure dull knife. You deniers are a hoot.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

How about that citation. No, not that blog you cited. Something real and recent.

Feb 2016 isn't recent enough for you judy? March statistics aren't out yet. Be calm.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Al Jazeera? As a source? Really, LittleLiberalEva?


"Climate change" is simply the current scare to convince people that the government needs more control and the people need less freedom. These phony statistics can sway the weaker minded, like LittleLiberalEva. But it is still a scam.

It is a scam that is working pretty well, unfortunately. Hopefully, when it is debunked, all the current supporters will apologize for wasting trillions of dollars to "abate" the problem.

[cptjohnstone]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

What say hillbilly?

I said it was a sad sad day when someone thinks people are flattering you with negative comments. Nobody likes you here or there. You lie like a democrat

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by cptjohnstone

I said it was a sad sad day when someone thinks people are flattering you with negative comments. Nobody likes you here or there. You lie like a democrat
You smell like a hillbilly.

No stones campaigning for "dumbest mo fo " on the forum. Nobody likes you scumbag.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

No stones campaigning for "dumbest mo fo " on the forum. Nobody likes you scumbag.

If anyone would "no" about dumb, it would be you, LittleLiberalEva.