nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

You don't argue with the "Christian" Science Monitor!

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/0226/Did-global-warming-take-a-hiatus-Depends-how-you-define-hiatus

peter11937 Loc: NYS

NOAA has a vested interest ion there being anthropogenic climate change. The attempt is to discredit without real data. They are using selected data. The alluded to heat island effect is real, but does not affect climate. Climate is driven by the Sun and its varying energy levels. Modified by our orbit shape, axis tilt, precession wobble, location of the continents, cosmic rays , cloud cover, ocean currents and counter currents, water vapor (95% of atmosphere retained heat-temporary) , CO2 ( less than 3.9 % of retained heat-temporary .,. human share 0.28 %), and possibly more factors that we do not yet understand. So action for its' own sake is , well, monkey motion and will produce nothing.
Why iis it that when showing "pollution" these days they show billowing clouds of CLOUDS! Clouds of steam/H2O do not show pollution.......

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

"They"?

You sure are spitting out a lot of "terms" which on the surface make you seem to be knowledgeable but in reality, are just "terms". What is NAOO's "vested" interest in global warming.

peter11937 Loc: NYS

Continuing federal funding. If they stated that there is climate change, has been so for billions of years and there is nothing that we can do which will noticeably cause climate to change without exploding all known nuclear devices on Earth. We want you to send us a neat slice of that $2 billion you spend on it anyway, they'd be on the unemployment line in a NY sec.. Or, as the Fiddler on your roof says, money makes thee world go 'round.

jets04

They are a mouthpiece for the gu'umint.

peter11937 Loc: NYS

Continuing federal funding. If they stated that there is climate change, has been so for billions of years and there is nothing that we can do which will noticeably cause climate to change without exploding all known nuclear devices on Earth. We want you to send us a neat slice of that $2 billion you spend on it anyway. If they said that, they'd be on the unemployment line in a NY sec.. Or, as the Fiddler on your roof says, money makes the world go 'round.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

You don't actually think the only thing they do is related to climate change do you??

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You should mail in your taxes to them then.

peter11937 Loc: NYS

No, here's their website. www.noaa.gov%2f/RK=0/RS=ionksJ_EzriRZO68UbD9.8Go2co-" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrBT7mV29BW3EUAqBdXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEycmppZG05BGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQTAxMDVfMQRzZWMDc3I-/RV=2/RE=1456557078/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.noaa.gov%2f/RK=0/RS=ionksJ_EzriRZO68UbD9.8Go2co-

Climate prediction is not anyone's long suit and especially a government agency that relies on computer models cobbled together in the 1990's that treat the Earth as a disc rather than a globe, do not include clouds in their model , nor ocean currents are not going to be able to predict anything accurately. In fact, if you load the data that actually includes the recent past as it actually occurred then project into the future, every time this has been tried, the projections were incorrect. Consistently too high temps were predicted. Maybe that's why their week weather forecasts are wrong regularly.
Remember, garbage in, garbage out is still very true. .

Pulfnick Loc: Knoxville, TN

NOAA is home to highly corrupt climate scientists. They have not been credible in this field for decades. This latest attempt to give their hoax a boost again relies on falsified data. That's why honest climate scientists are still demanding NOAA release their actual data and adjustments: http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/28/300-scientists-want-noaa-to-stop-hiding-its-global-warming-data/

DamnYANKEE

shhhh . you'll ruin the scam

peter11937 Loc: NYS

Yes.....also there is benefit to more CO2 in the atmosphere; see http://www.iloveco2.com/

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Pulf,

I know this is old, but seems you have forgotten about it. So this is small part of a CSM piece to remind you of truth and consensus by your most trusted corporations and Christians..


Exxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it became a public issue, according to a recent investigation from InsideClimate News. This knowledge did not prevent the company (now ExxonMobil and the world’s largest oil and gas company) from spending decades refusing to publicly acknowledge climate change and even promoting climate misinformation—an approach many have likened to the lies spread by the tobacco industry regarding the health risks of smoking. Both industries were conscious that their products wouldn’t stay profitable once the world understood the risks, so much so that they used the same consultants to develop strategies on how to communicate with the public.

Experts, however, aren’t terribly surprised. “It’s never been remotely plausible that they did not understand the science,” says Naomi Oreskes, a history of science professor at Harvard University. But as it turns out, Exxon didn’t just understand the science, the company actively engaged with it. In the 1970s and 1980s it employed top scientists to look into the issue and launched its own ambitious research program that empirically sampled carbon dioxide and built rigorous climate models. Exxon even spent more than $1 million on a tanker project that would tackle how much CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. It was one of the biggest scientific questions of the time, meaning that Exxon was truly conducting unprecedented research.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Pete,

Just a small reminder of how dumb some of the things you read actually are...

From the Guardian...

Only a small part....


lobal climate models aren’t given nearly enough credit for their accurate global temperature change projections. As the 2014 IPCC report showed, observed global surface temperature changes have been within the range of climate model simulations.

Now a new study shows that the models were even more accurate than previously thought. In previous evaluations like the one done by the IPCC, climate model simulations of global surface air temperature were compared to global surface temperature observational records like HadCRUT4. However, over the oceans, HadCRUT4 uses sea surface temperatures rather than air temperatures.

peter11937 Loc: NYS

CO2 is food for all green plants and blue-green algae. The more there is, the more they eat, accelerating their growth annd crop yields typically by 30 percent and in some cases as much as 100 percent. Plants in high (1200 ppm) CO2 atmosphere require LESS water, FEWER fertilizers, LESS insecticide treatment and, generally, less attention. Pre Carboniferous CO2 was at an estimated 3000 to 6,000 ppm, and the Earth did not combust. In fact, it flourished.