Discussion in 'Politics' started by Magoo, Dec 9, 2015.
Every 11 years. Its cyclical. Always has. Called El Nino.
Too late for some of these sheep. They'll believe anything.......whether supported by facts or not.
The wasted Climate Change money could fatten them up. But those kids will never get to vote for a Democrat, so they're irrelevant to the movement.
Since if obvious that this climate change hoax is unproven science, wouldn't it make more sense to improve the filtering of the exhaust given off from coal burning power plants, versus shutting down an entire industry?
I bet that Barry gave Kerry a (sagging) brow beating over those comments.
The entire thing is a money grabbing sham. They had to change the name from global warming to climate change because that will give them cover when they get challenged on the lack of temperature rises.
El Niño Impacts on Ocean Warming
Published: Oct 8th, 2015
By Climate Central
This year is on track to be the hottest on record globally. The strong El Niño is likely playing a role as the average global temperature of an El Niño year is 0.4°F higher than a La Niña year. However, the strong El Niño is not solely responsible for the warming planet. Global temperatures have been trending upward since 1950, regardless of whether or not the Pacific Ocean was in an El Niño, La Niña, or neutral phase. In fact, La Niña years in the 21st Century are now warmer than El Niño years just 30 years ago. Similarly, the long term trend of global ocean water temperatures is on the increase, emphasizing that El Niño is only magnifying the ongoing warming trend.
The ongoing El Niño, among the strongest on record, will very likely play an important role in weather patterns across the country this winter. It increases the chances of a wetter winter in Southern California and a milder winter across the northern tier states. As the planet warms from the buildup of greenhouse gases, there may be a change in the atmospheric circulations near the equatorial Pacific Ocean. One possible result of that change is an increased number of extreme El Niños.
In one projection, there is a greater warming of the water in the eastern equatorial Pacific compared to areas immediately north and south, or the West Pacific. The faster warming, in turn, could slow down the easterly trade winds that converge along the equator more often. These trade winds normally push warm water westward toward Asia. So, slower trade winds would allow the warm water in the western Pacific to slosh back to the central Pacific, which is a key element in the development of El Niño.
I stopped reading at the first sentence. No use continuing the lie.
Satellite data shows no warming for 17 years now.
In the report NASA put out saying this year is hot, they claimed 30% accuracy.
You are just wrong on that!
It is all in God's hand!
My penis is colder than 20 yrs ago...must be the Cheerios
.take a viagra and I'm hot again !!
gO tEaM !
satellite pictures will disprove this belief
sorry woody im afraid i never took part in your fantasy experiment. try shopping at the XXX store down the street
It's like a tic that never dies...someone scratch it off
Not only that, but check this, Jimmy, from a hearing held by the Senate Subcommittee on Science, Space, and Competitiveness Tuesday, December 8:
>>> [Sen.] Markey predictably trotted out the mantra that 2014 was the hottest year on record (not mentioning that the record in mind goes back only to 1880) and 2015 will top it.
But Curry, prompted by Cruz, pointed out that NASA’s claim for 2014 was given with only 38 percent confidence, meaning it was more likely not hottest; that NOAA listed 2014 as in a statistical tie with four others for hottest; and that the UK dataset only goes so far as to put 2014 in the top 10. (Funny how that didn’t make it into Politico.)
No one, by the way, mentioned that according to the satellite data 2015 will likely be the third warmest year on record, behind 1998 and 2010, with 2014 only the seventh warmest, though 2016, as the second year of an El Nino pair, is likely to top even 1998. <<<
I wish I could give this a dozen likes. ^^
If the so-called "SCIENCEOMG!!" crowd weren't so anti-science, they'd admit that the Medieval Warming Period was much warmer than where we are now. There were no SUV's or Chinese factories back then. Then we experienced the Little Ice Age, and we're still exiting that cycle with the tiny bit of warming we see.
Here's a question for the "SCIENCEOMG" alarmists: Do you embrace the cult-like eco-activist agenda and altogether dismiss evolution?
Of course, we all know the answer to that. They aren't exactly 'Bigger Picture' types, unless it fits the agenda.
If evolution is an indicator, our species will adapt to changing climate. (Who among you would deny nature the opportunity to grow gorilla hair all over your body? LOL!)
Our "SCIENCEOMG!" friends seem to believe that the climate is a static system rather than a dynamic one. Nothing can ever change, see? But if they paid attention in elementary school, they should know that without changing seasons and temperature variability, we wouldn't exist, nor would we ever build immunities to a variety of diseases. They remind me of the closed-minded authoritarians of past societies, where failing to predict an eclipse was grounds for execution. Or trying to explain heliocentricity to the consensus crowd was grounds for imprisonment, or worse. Poor Bruno.
Here's some graphs that give perspective:
Much more here:
Gold star post!