Har Har Har Global warming crap

[piscator]

Where do you live, son? How do they handle floods there?

Mind your own business pop.

Yep. You really don't know.

Nope. you're right. I can't help you. I have no psychiatric qualifications whatsoever.

But you're certainly putting on a clinic here.

[mistermack]

Where do you live, son? How do they handle floods there?

Mind your own business pop.

Yep. You really don't know.

Nope. you're right. I can't help you. I have no psychiatric qualifications whatsoever.

But you're certainly putting on a clinic here.

How do you find your own posts so amusing? Don't you think there's something weird about that?
I find it a bit creepy, to be honest.

[Tero]

I was talking about your sea level graph. I'm sure it was ok, I'm just making the point that a graph without it's source is like a lone turd.
Anyone could have done it.

Sea level data links are here.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... level-rise

Anyone can make the same graph from the same data. You have to measure sealevel in lots of places. Eventually there is a problem with tides, if the water collects. But even there the average of low and high tide will give a number. No use measuring in contained seas like the North Sea.

[piscator]

How do you find your own posts so amusing? Don't you think there's something weird about that?
I find it a bit creepy, to be honest.

That's because the humor's flying right over your head, little buddy.


I'd feel a little sorry for you, but you just beg for it.

[Woodbutcher]

Well, I'm impressed.
It appears that we can disregard the opinion of christian climate scientists as rubbish.
That sheds a whole new light on the situation. It's such a logical approach, I can't imagine why I haven't thought of it.

We must immediately run a survey of the so-called "consensus" of scientists, many of whom I suspect are religious. And follow the members of the IPCC around, to see if they go near a church.

As far as the pretty pictures go, there doesn't seem to be a mention of who made them, so they are meaningless.
Macdoc constantly posts graphs that might as well have come out of his ass. There's never a reference, so they are complete fiction. And quoting the sceptical science blog is like quoting the chimps at London Zoo. It's not an official ANYTHING.
It's just rabid invention.

But the OFFICIAL uk Met Office figures are among the many, that show that global warming stopped, sixteen years ago.
This was kept quiet by the Met office, they slipped it out quietly, hoping that nobody would notice :



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ve-it.html

How's this, Mick?

[Woodbutcher]

And you mistrust the nasa data?
The tables, with the formula in degrees C at the bottom give the Nasa graphs
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

The 7th graph in
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
Gives the false "flat" 1996 and later graph widely shown in tabloid papers.

I gotta go to dinner after helping my son move.

Actually, the giss figures are the least trustworthy, out of the official sets. They consistently make choices designed to maximise the appearance of warming. I might trust their figures, but I'd look very hard at the context, and at what they choose not to mention. They have an agenda.

Anyway, I believe I originally quoted the British Met office, who quietly and sneakily announced the halt in warming, hoping nobody would notice. They also drastically reduced their forecast of future temperatures.
If people like the Met Office are acknowledging the seventeen plus year plateau, in spite of wanting to promote the AGW message, then I conclude that it's real, and it's official. If you think otherwise, could you explain to me what the Met Office are up to?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ve-it.html

Here's another one. You get your science from Daily Mail, and think it's research. Must be wonderful living inside that pointed head of yours, safe from dangerous science and wisdom, only relying on your own science background for verity. IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!!!

[Woodbutcher]

Says a man who quotes Daily Mail.

Do I really? Isn't it funny you don't point out where. You're so full of shit, you're almost amusing.

Yes, you do, dipshit. Makes you a liar and a troll, doesn't it. At least your consistent, you haven't made an intelligent post here yet.

[Tero]

Yeah yeah, warming stopped 16 years ago. It did that a couple times before. It always went up later. Nothing new except for daily news.

[macdoc]

That's atmospheric which is a tiny portion of the heat/energy capture going on.

[mistermack]

Says a man who quotes Daily Mail.

Do I really? Isn't it funny you don't point out where. You're so full of shit, you're almost amusing.

Yes, you do, dipshit. Makes you a liar and a troll, doesn't it. At least your consistent, you haven't made an intelligent post here yet.

God you're dumb. You STILL haven't pointed out where I quoted the daily mail.
All you've demonstrated is that you don't even understand YOUR OWN posts.
Keep it up, you're hilarious.

[mistermack]

That's atmospheric which is a tiny portion of the heat/energy capture going on.

You hear this over and over again now. The globe is still warming, but it's going into the oceans.

That's because for sixteen years, the atmospheric temperature has stayed steady. This is accepted now by all but the weirdest loonies. There is also the '' lost heat '' problem, because according to the heat in/out equations, the atmosphere SHOULD be a lot warmer by now.

This has been '' solved '' in the alarmist camps, by claiming that the lost heat has been absorbed in the oceans, and not that the heat in/out equations have a serious flaw.
It could be one, it could be the other. Nobody knows, because the deepest ocean temperatures are not being accurately monitored, and never have been.

What it does prove though, without any doubt whatsoever, is that the models that the gullible were sold, over the years, were wrong. No, we don't understand climate. No, we can't say what will happen. No, we can't model it successfully. Yet.

It's about time people like macdoc got truthful, and admitted that, instead of clinging in a religious fashion to a completely false '' certainty ''.

Even if it's right, that the lost heat is in the deepest part of the oceans, that doesn't mean global catastrophe.
Far from it, it means that the oceans can absorb more heat than we thought possible, and in that case, they will have to re imagine what the supposed atmospheric warming will be by the end of the century.

If it's wrong, and the in/out heat equations have at least one missing component, then the climate is even MORE resistant to overheating than we thought, and we should start to worry instead about how we can prevent the next glaciation.

[Tero]

Yeah yeah, warming stopped 16 years ago. It did that a couple times before. It always went up later. Nothing new except for daily news.

Since 1980 global warming has "stalled" three times, thought the last bit is not shown well. Even the stalled years were warmer than years before 1980

[Woodbutcher]

Says a man who quotes Daily Mail.

Do I really? Isn't it funny you don't point out where. You're so full of shit, you're almost amusing.

Yes, you do, dipshit. Makes you a liar and a troll, doesn't it. At least your consistent, you haven't made an intelligent post here yet.

God you're dumb. You STILL haven't pointed out where I quoted the daily mail.
All you've demonstrated is that you don't even understand YOUR OWN posts.
Keep it up, you're hilarious.

I'm sorry but if you would simply check the two posts of mine above, you'd see fucking daily mail in the URL. If that is beyond your ability, ask one of the orderlies in your facility to point that out. Your inability to read posts is astounding, no wonder you cannot post anything even approaching common sense. You don't read previous posts, you don't read links, and you refuse to read any articles posted that disagree with your fallacies. That is so idiotic I doubt your kids were sired by you. I bet they don't even look like you. See if you can buy a brain, even an invertebrate brain would be an improvement over the one you have. Oh, and keep posting your dreck, even though not a single poster agrees with you, you amuse those of us who can think logically. You are one of a kind. I don't wish to argue with you, because arguing with stupid is pointless, I can't come down to your level. And, you have much more experience at being stupid than anybody else on this forum, I grant you that. You're number one!

[Tero]

Couple more ocean links for mm not to read:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/General/temperature.html
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html

[mistermack]

Says a man who quotes Daily Mail.

Do I really? Isn't it funny you don't point out where. You're so full of shit, you're almost amusing.

Yes, you do, dipshit. Makes you a liar and a troll, doesn't it. At least your consistent, you haven't made an intelligent post here yet.

God you're dumb. You STILL haven't pointed out where I quoted the daily mail.
All you've demonstrated is that you don't even understand YOUR OWN posts.
Keep it up, you're hilarious.

I'm sorry but if you would simply check the two posts of mine above, you'd see fucking daily mail in the URL. If that is beyond your ability, ask one of the orderlies in your facility to point that out. Your inability to read posts is astounding, no wonder you cannot post anything even approaching common sense. You don't read previous posts, you don't read links, and you refuse to read any articles posted that disagree with your fallacies. That is so idiotic I doubt your kids were sired by you. I bet they don't even look like you. See if you can buy a brain, even an invertebrate brain would be an improvement over the one you have. Oh, and keep posting your dreck, even though not a single poster agrees with you, you amuse those of us who can think logically. You are one of a kind. I don't wish to argue with you, because arguing with stupid is pointless, I can't come down to your level. And, you have much more experience at being stupid than anybody else on this forum, I grant you that. You're number one!

Woodbutcher, you are breaking records for idiocy with that post.
I've come across some in my time, but you are number one. You clearly don't even understand the difference between providing a link, and quoting someone. I'm not going to tell you what the difference is, because you are keeping me entertained so well.
You really are a precious one worth saving. Keep it going, I love it.