Unless you live in the SH.
We’re having a heat waaaave…
An underwater heat waaaave…
World’s oceans facing biggest coral die-off in history, scientists warn
Who knew that the oceans were a massive heat sink and that this would have significant global effects? We are all completely surprised by this.
No, you didn’t. I quoted what you wrote, and asked you for evidence. Now that it’s obvious you don’t atually have any, you are moving the goal post. Let me know how that works out for you.
It wouldn’t surprise me at all if somebody shows evidence for that. Same for most huge corporations. They will do pretty much anything to make money, and avoid taxes. Hell, even a small group of people will do that shit. It’s a fucking nightmare.
Good point. The SH is so different from the NH it almost seems like a different world. Especially when it comes to the failure of models in regards to the last few decades there.
I can appreciate your sarcasm. The world’s oceans, and especially the southern ocean, are a huge unknown, and that’s really bad. Also coral death sucks. And we don’t actually know that much about the oceans.
Even worse, due to the politics of the “solution” to global warming, even the past data for oceans is adjusted and fucked with, making it really hard to know what is really going on.
Even more worse, the GCM (General Circulation Models) which try to model ocean changes are almost completely fucked. The assumption for CO2 forcing (how much increasing CO2 will warm the planet) are calculated as if it is an increase in sunlight. I’m not kidding.
The models calculate ocean warming from increased CO2 as if the sun got a little warmer, which is not how CO2 forcing acts at all, which might be why the models are so fucked up at present.
So then it is unclear why you oppose RICO investigation and potential prosecution. That quote, by the way, comes from the judge in the RICO decision regarding the tobacco companies.
I know where it came from. And I am not opposed to RICO being used to go after corporations that violate the law. That’s a no-brainer by the way.
Okay, which face of Eve am I talking to here? You were extremely opposed to this a page or two ago.
Lets back up for a moment.
It was claimed the Feds are already abusing RICO laws like this. That’s what I asked about.
You are equating the actions of Big Tobacco covering up, of knowing that their product had extreme health risks, and covering it up, being deceptive and all kind of other dirty tricks, with somebody being skeptical of the claims that increasing CO2 will destroy the world.
And you can’t see what you are doing.
FYI, the letter was removed from the web. http://www.iges.org/letter/LetterPresidentAG.pdf
And in utter irony, the person responsible for it is now being investigated. Seems they may have had their snout really deep in the AGW money trough.
The point I objected to in the letter, is summed up below.
Note the wording of the claim.
As I said, I can believe that, and I asked for sources. Evidence.
This page goes into this in detail, and was educational to me. It still seems there has to be actual crimes involved, but the abuse seems obvious, and it probably has been used for political gain.
How this applies to climate/global warming science is another issue.
“Bump.”
While unrelated to the global warming, it’s a fascinating look into RICO. I had no idea.
Aw, somebody isn’t getting enough attention. 
Who are you again?
Oh yeah, the pie guy. Hows that pie thing working out for you?
You see fuckheads? It’s not just you that want to silence any dissent, shut down free speech and ram your collective idiocy down the world’s throat, and then reach into everyone’s wallet, all in the name of a great cause.
The liberal French prove the other point. Speaking up gets you shitcanned.
Oh sure the alarmist fuckhead will tell you it’s for some other reason, but that bullshit probably won’t fly.
Bump!
Quit doing that.
Pay attention to me! Stop undermining my efforts to provoke a response! I crave your attention, even if you hate me fuckheads! Look at me! Someone talk to me! I’m desperate!!!
No. Let the thread die.
One can always ask. Finding the answer amidst the idiocy, trolling and plethora of fuckhead responses, that’s another matter.
Be that as it may, here’s a (possibly) final bitch about global warming. Which I am so sick of.
A basic ‘fingerprint’ of AGW (global warming caused by increasing greenhouse effect, due to people burning fossil fuels) is that winters should warm more than summers. This is a basic global warming theory prediction, based on physics. (if it were the sun, summers would show more warming, or the warming would be seen in all seasons) Here is a source, here is another one that includes three papers.
For convenience, all the following sources will be from GISS data. The source for each statement is the link in the statement.
Here is a GISS graphic, global mean temperature anomaly.
Here is the same data plotted using WFT from 1940 till present (the two are the same data.)
Looking at this we can see a period of cooling, and a period of warming, both are indicated by trend lines.
The cooling period is shown using a GISS map, for the annual mean, as well as the February trend.
The warming period is shown using a GISS map for the annual mean, as well as the February trend.
For good measure here is the August warming period, and the August cooling period.
So there are all the sources so that anyone can simply view them.
The twenty year cooling period 1944-1963 shows dramatic warming for much of the globe in the deep of winter, even as the annual mean shows cooling.
The twenty year warming period 1995-2014 shows dramatic cooling for much of the globe, while the annual mean shows warming.
Comparing these two twenty year trends, for the coldest month of the global year, shows why the last twenty years is such an unexpected event.
Theory says we should see the most warming during boreal winter, but the data shows cooling.
The fuckhead alarmist is not unlike most “climate experts”, in that when faced with these facts, using GISS data, there is no scientific response that counters the obvious problem.
You can’t claim the data is bad. You can’t say the theory must be wrong. Twenty years is long enough to be valid. So you can’t hand wave it away. Since the annual mean shows warming, but the winter trend is cooling, something has to give.
Unless you just pretend it doesn’t mean anything.
The 1944-1963 period is used to compare two twenty year climate periods, one cooling, one warming.
The same problem shows up using larger periods, and more months. The February data just makes it is obvious, anyone can see it.
The cooling trend centered around February (Cohen et al. 2010) is significant starting in 1988, for the regions showing an increase in snow amounts, snow extent, and seasonal increases.
So while we see this remarkable warming, especially in boreal spring, but also for summer and fall, the winter trend is extremely negative, which fits with the increase in snow.
None of this means CO2 isn’t increasing (it certainly is), or that it has no effect (it certainly does), it just means the basic theory is wrong, as far as we can tell from observations.
Furthermore, as Cohen (and now many others) have suggested, it might be that the effect of CO2 is actually causing the changes.
If this is so (and nobody can say yet that it is), but if it is actually the case, then the brutal record cold, along with record snow, is actually from global warming.
That’s not an actual thesis, but there it is.