That's not global.
Oh, sorry... 'Murica!
Oh, sorry... 'Murica!
1. no 2.it is slowing the cooling 3. unknown still warmer in the 1930's
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep |
|
The 1930s were hotter *in the US*
That's not global. Oh, sorry... 'Murica! Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson. |
|
got a link to go with that?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep |
|
Actually I was wrong.
1934 was the 4th warmest in the US: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/climatological-rankings/index.php?periods%5B%5D=12¶meter=tavg&state=110&div=0&year=1934&month=12#ranks-form 2007 was the hottest year on record across land and sea, globally: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/1 Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson. |
|
is that from the real temps or the normalized ones?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep |
|
Re: is that from the real temps or the normalized ones?
Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson. |
|
thanks,
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep |
|
Re: 1. no 2.it is slowing the cooling 3. unknown still warmer in the 1930's
|
|
nice, explained here
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep |
|
Incorrect, the answer to all 3 questions is "yes"
Now if you can prove otherwise using non-wingnut data and methods, do so, and win yourself a Nobel. |
|
http://forum.iwethey.org/forum/post/274586/
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep |
|
Peter is open minded, film at 11. ;-)
Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson. |
|
Lots of us have modified our thinking on AGW over the years.
I was much too skeptical of the science and too trusting of the critics for too long. I changed, too, once I understood the science better. Why haven't you? Back then, your position seemed to be: 1) We're adding too little CO2 for it to matter. 2) Sure, AGW is real, but: the models are crap, and scientists are corrupt, and warming in the Arctic is good anyway, and AlGoreisFatandWantsAllMyMoney, so I will fight tooth and nail to prevent an effective government response. 3) Volcanoes!!111 Is that still a good summary of your views? :-) If not, tell me please. Thanks. Cheers, Scott. |
|
of course I have modified my postion as well
greenhouse gas forcing by humans is a bad thing transferring the wealth of the west to the third world will not stop AGW taxing the west into poverty will not stop AGW the scientists are just starting to recognize that AGW alone will not predict a reliable climate model, they realize they don't know enough. The advice I gave a few years ago about stockpiling water in california is here 6 years ahead of time for example. volcanoes may be a good solution Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep |