Previous  1 ... 3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

It pops in from time to time,rips whatever he can off my trees and then hits the nieghbors,little does he know Im fattening him up.

   

It's 43 and rising.

   

Your welcome,they should be there in an hour or so. Light show tonight! Southern Alberta weather is so predictable.

   

So if it's not from greenhouse gases, what is it? Invisible pixies with high body temperatures going through a baby boom?

   

I'm not disputing climate change is real or not. A heat wave is not proof of global warming.

   

Give it a bit,usually it's ten minutes after the wind picks up to mach1 before the rain starts falling. The temp's dropping now,thunderheads are building as they come over the livingstone range and hit the prarie. But then again the rain may evaporate before it hits the ground. I stayed east of you in three hills/big valley/Elnora and that's bloody tornado alley,I try and forget about pine lake. Still only half a sign on the highway after the last tornado which was years ago.

k.If it does rain I'll watch the hail report on CTV tonight. Seems to have milded out now. The night's young yet though,get the battery on the digicam charged up just in case. Put a sleeping bag in your vehicle in case it hails(makes a good cushion to keep down on the dents). Your only a few hundred kliks north of me and I can see the weather your going to get just by walking outside.

That's just my opinion though,I asked my bud from Newcastle NB who's doing the bbq tonight and he says it's looking ugly.

   

OK, so we're going through a temperature increase the likes of which has not been seen in at least thousands of years, according to the (US) National Academy of Sciences... what are you suggesting is causing that?

   

Better go back a few million to get some good average results.

   

It clearly says in my post "A heat wave is not proof of global warming" There is probably other things that are proof of global warming/climate change, a heat wave is not one of them. I'm not disputing somethings going on so your trying to argue with the wrong person.

   

It is currently 38c in Vernon BC. Atleast that's what the weather channel is telling me. This makes me change my mind about ever visiting a tropical country.

   

Dammit. The same damn lies...

It only looks to be a correlation because you're only looking at the past 140 years, which is profoundly stupid.

Climate change works over much broader periods.

There's a whole lot of things that look like a correlation over that period. A graph of the NYSE against temperature would correlate the same way your carbon-emissions graph does. And stock prices do not cause temperature to rise.

If you look at it over a longer period, there is no correlation.






In fact, let's be blunt. Your first graph starts around 1860. A known temperature low in the past three centuries.

Which means this : the person who constructed your graph deliberately chose a known low to start from. Why? ---Only one answer, because they wanted to make things look as abd as possible.

Why do that? Because they wanted to strech the truth, they wanted to create false impressions.

In other words, they wanted to lie.

I don't see how else to explain it. You have someone screwing with data to make things look as bad as possible (for obvious political reasons), and you, Hardy, are a victim of their misrepresentations.

You, Hardy. Bright guy, open-minded. Someone just took advantage of you and took a shit in your open mind.

How does that make you feel?

   

Actually, it looks as if the surface temperature of the Arctic correlates extremely well with the CO2 levels, per your own chart. The chart could use a little catching up, atmospheric CO2 is now at 381 ppm, so rescaling will be needed to keep the line from going off the top. But it is quite informative, thanks for posting it.



The temperature data go back to 1880 in the case of 2 of the 3 datasets used: those of the US Department of Commerce, and NASA -- I do not believe that either of these are moonbat outfits. The 3rd set of figures are from the UK (the Climate Research Unit, at the University of East Anglia), and go back to 1856, you will see there were no high temperatures in the 1856-1879 period:



As for why there are no figures prior to that, the groups concerned say that it is because there isn't enough reliable data. I'd imagine this is mostly related to quality control problems with early, hand-blown thermometers. You have to remember, the mercury thermometer dates from the 1700s, and the medical thermometer from 1866 (earlier thermometers took at least 20 minutes to give a correct reading). There is no need to assume that the lack of earlier data is due to lies and collusion between NASA, the US Department of Commerce and the British Climate Research Unit.

   

Tis 12:40 here, and still hot like a mo-fo.................ugh

   

LOL

   

It's supposed to cool down gradually this week and maybe even a chance of rain by the weekend. I welcome that!

   

Previous  1 ... 3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next