patrick.net

Rew says

The stats for the past 100 years were:
+1.7 mm a year (plus or minus 0.5mm)
+1.33°F (0.74ºC) in the past century

So, what's the average temperature at the Arctic Circle?

What's the average temperature at the Equator?

People adapt and live at both places year round.

So in the big picture of logic, a 1.33 degree rise F over 130 years is a BIG nothingburger.

anon_1bd09 says

Seriously, what the alarmists want us to do? They want us spend trillions to mitigate 0.02 degree increase by years 2100.

It's sad that what appear to be intelligent people get sucked into the fraud and hoax known as Global Warming, oops Climate Change with this data.

Extreme Weather Conditions: "Record Cold Weather is NOT the Climate, retard!"
Extreme Weather Conditions: "See! Tornadoes! Believe in Climate change now, retards?"

marcus says

Let me get this straight. Tides cause a range in sea levels of about 24 inches, and you're going to use a couple photos to argue that sea level hasn't gone up by 8 inches ?

You can see the high tide line in the photos I don't know what you're going on about.

Onvacation says

Science does not care about popularity contests.

It does and it doesn't.
It cares about what can be peer reviewed and proven. In a way, that's the greatest popularity contest of all.

Onvacation says

If the earth is warming why is the hottest temp ever recorded over a century old?

You confuse a single data point with a net trend.

If I have a sheet of steel, 1 inch thick and 1 square mile surface area, and I raise the temperature of a single localized point on that plate to 100 degrees ... how much energy did that take? What if I raised the entire surface 40 degrees over the entire plate? How much energy did that take? How much net heat is transferred to the air as the plate cools to the air temperature in each case?

Sort these by year:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records
The mean Earth temperature has been proven to be going up.

Rew says

The mean Earth temperature has been proven to be going up.

Onvacation says

How much did the temp rise between 2015 (2nd hottest year) and 2016 ( hottest year EVER)?
How can they measure such a small increase over the entire globe?

I assume you alarmists know the answer as you keep talking about "the warming".

Rew says

Sort these by year:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records
The mean Earth temperature has been proven to be going up.

So when was the hottest temp ever?

[Rew says

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records

From your link
"Christopher C. Burt, the weather historian writing for Weather Underground who shepherded the Libya reading's 2012 disqualification, believes that the 1913 Death Valley reading is "a myth", and is at least 2.2 or 2.8 °C (4 or 5 °F) too high."

The weather underground is a well known alarmist site.
Try this
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/highest-recorded-temperature

Rew says

The mean Earth temperature has been proven to be going up.

Yes, by 1.4 degrees F over 130 years.

We're all going to be 'Wet Bulbed" to death!!

RUN......................................

I seem to have forgotten the Media assault on Bernie for connecting "Weather" to "Climate"

TwoScoopsPlissken says

I seem to have forgotten the Media assault on Bernie for connecting "Weather" to "Climate"

Where did Bernie connect weather to climate?

https://www.geologyin.com/2017/12/scientists-found-massive-volume-of.html

Scientists have found a massive volume of water 1,000km inside of our planet, around a third way to Earth’s core: “This water is much deeper than ever found before, at a third of the way to the edge of Earth’s core.”

A research published by scientists at the French University Jean Monnet has shown what for many years only appeared in science fiction books: oceans of water to unimaginable depths in the interior of the Earth, reports New Scientist.

For Steve Jacobsen, one of the members of the team of researchers, the discovery shows the existence of a reservoir of water much larger than previously believed located inside of our planet.



In addition, it is the deepest aquatic deposit ever found, since it is located a third of the distance between the outer layer of our planet and its core, a thousand kilometers deep.

This amazing discovery was made possible thanks to a strange diamond expelled by a volcano more than 90 million years ago and found near the São Luiz River in the municipality of Juína, in Brazil.

The rock has an imperfection in its structure produced in the first moments of its formation. This natural defect shows an unusual accumulation of “sealed” minerals inside the diamond, which contain hydroxyl ions, a functional group that comes from water.

In addition, the presence of minerals characteristic of the lower terrestrial mantle has allowed scientists to determine the depth of the water deposit.

Scientists believe that this finding will allow us to understand why our planet has tectonic plates and what has been the role of water in its formation and conservation.



“If it were not there [the water], we would probably all be submerged,” believes Jacobsen, who also believes that this type of discovery will help understand how the oceans and Earth’s atmosphere formed.

According to Jacobsen, this study may help us better understand why Earth is the only planet we know to have plate tectonics.

“If there were no water inside the Earth, the convection of the Earth’s mantle would be inefficient and eventually cease,” explains the researcher.

Read more at http://www.geologyin.com/2017/12/scientists-found-massive-volume-of.html#ve8z4jKKdLrxiWuZ.99

Sniper says

It's sad that what appear to be intelligent people get sucked into the fraud and hoax known as Global Warming, oops Climate Change with this data.

No, what's sad is that we live in a time when facts and science are considered "beliefs," and people with below average intelligence and reasoning skills explain how they can believe whatever they fucking want to believe.

errc says

TwoScoopsPlissken says

I seem to have forgotten the Media assault on Bernie for connecting "Weather" to "Climate"

Where did Bernie connect weather to climate?

errc says

TwoScoopsPlissken says

I seem to have forgotten the Media assault on Bernie for connecting "Weather" to "Climate"

Where did Bernie connect weather to climate?

Wow, just wow!!!

You fail at the simple surface area and data point thought exercise I see. Shame.

Onvacation says

So when was the hottest temp ever?

A record from 1922, just because it was in the past, doesn't negate the overwhelming warming trend the Earth is experiencing. Climate versus weather, right?

Strategist says

Onvacation says

The sea has risen very little. 10 inches in a century and a half.

One question answered

There was no pollution 150 years ago. It's entirely possible most of the 10 inch increase happened very recently.
I don't see global warming as a serious problem though, because alternative energy and electric cars will soon arrive like an avalanche, and the problem will be solved.

/facepalm
I'm actually a denier, but I'm ok with reducing pollution. I simply can't believe everyone looks to the USA to lead emissions reductions when I don't see any of our cities, large or small, suffering from air pollution like China and India. If these countries really cared, they would take steps like we did to reign in the problem. Instead, things seem to be getting worse in these countries. The human toll in future will be horrendous, but maybe they figure the people will just die early from lung diseases and cancer. Overpopulation problem solved!

anon_1bd09 says

anon_b8f55 says

“Science does not care about popularity contests.” It’s hilarious that you say that. What does the science say about climate change? Not your ‘science’ by the way, but what the actual researchers in the field say.

The actual researches in the field have lowered the ECS to 1.5. Of course, that fact is downplayed in all the usual newspapers so that likes of you can dismiss and ignore it.
Here is an example https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ipcc-revises-climate-sensitivity/

What you link in no way negates my point.

Hilarious. :)

Can someone explain to me why the two Rew posts above are in comment jail? Is that the level of censorship we now have on here? This site used to allow people to say pretty much anything, and now you can’t even say that. Seriously?

Sniper jailed those. This one seems legit, since it is a personal insult instead of just about the topic of argument:

I'm beginning to doubt your capacity for simple internet research, and many other things ...

But you're right, the other was not a personal attack, and so is liberated now.

rocketjoe79 says

Strategist says

Onvacation says

The sea has risen very little. 10 inches in a century and a half.

One question answered

There was no pollution 150 years ago. It's entirely possible most of the 10 inch increase happened very recently.
I don't see global warming as a serious problem though, because alternative energy and electric cars will soon arrive like an avalanche, and the problem will be solved.

/facepalm
I'm actually a denier, but I'm ok with reducing pollution. I simply can't believe everyone looks to the USA to lead emissions reductions when I don't see any of our cities, large or small, suffering from air pollution like China and India. If these countries really cared, they would take steps like we did to reign in the problem. Instead, things seem to be getting worse ...

They are taking steps.

That is not a personal attack. OP poster continues to ask easily found answers/facts available to anyone who can use a search engine and read.

One cannot read this thread and wonder what the point of repeatedly asking is, and what their general literacy is.

Google it. It's right here:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201608

errc says

Where did Bernie connect weather to climate?

C'mon man... hahahahahahah

Rew says

Pnet: where the most ignored, butthurt, and blocked police the forums.

Are yo-u saying that AF is the forum Nazi?

Patrick says

Sniper jailed those. This one seems legit, since it is a personal insult instead of just about the topic of argument:

I'm beginning to doubt your capacity for simple internet research, and many other things ...

But you're right, the other was not a personal attack, and so is liberated now.

That’s testing the bounds, is it not? You’ve taken things too far when a comment like that is not acceptable. Every day, we see insults that are not banned simply because they are couched in a slightly generic way or favour the prevailing sentiment on here. It’s getting a bit ridiculous.

Sniper says

Haven't you said over and over using the word "yo-u" is a personal attack?

Patrick says

If you're attacking the user rather than sticking to attacking his point, that's my definition of incivility.

Didn't you even write a sub-routine that if Sniper had the word "yo-u" in a post, it would immediately get dumped?

So you think he was trying to block that particular subject pronoun rather than what invariably came after it. I see.

Rew says

One cannot read this thread and wonder what the point of repeatedly asking is, and what their general literacy is.

Expose the fraud of CAGW and educate the uninformed.

The questions are important and the answers point out the deceptions of the alarmists.
Many people that accept CAGW as gospel do not know the answers to these questions.
The fact that we have over a hundred posts and all of the questions have NOT been answered and instead the true believers have resorted to personal attacks speaks volumes.

Onvacation says

The questions are important and the answers point out the deceptions of the alarmists.
Many people that accept CAGW as gospel do not know the answers to these questions.
The fact that we have over a hundred posts and all of the questions have NOT been answered and instead the true believers have resorted to personal attacks speaks volumes.

You still haven't answered my questions either. What is your position on global warming?

1. The earth isn't warming?
2. The earth is warming but it's part of a natural cycle and not due to any human causes
3. The earth is warming due to humans, but climate is self regulating and a few degrees up or down doesn't matter
4. The earth is warming due to humans and may have catastrophic effects, but there's nothing we can do about it so why bother.

HappyGilmore says

You still haven't answered my questions either. What is your position on global warming?

5. The earth is warmed by the sun.

NOW will you answer my questions?

Onvacation says

5. The earth is warmed by the sun.

NOW will you answer my questions?

hilarious. Why should anyone answer any questions of yours when you are so obviously disingenuous.

HappyGilmore says

hilarious. Why should anyone answer any questions of yours when you are so obviously disingenuous.

Onvacation says

The fact that we have over a hundred posts and all of the questions have NOT been answered and instead the true believers have resorted to personal attacks speaks volumes.

I rest my case, for now.

Onvacation says

I rest my case, for now.

As do I.

Patrick should allow anyone that’s been here for years the ability to ban Sniper/Ironman/CallitCrazy and the other aliases he has made here with the sole intent of harassing people, stifling everyone elses right to free speech, and disrupting the forum.

@Patrick, there’s your solution, what say you?

@errc you do have that ability, as long as you're logged in.

Just go to https://patrick.net/user/Sniper and click "ignore"

Why do some have the ability to mark posts uncivil while others do not?

@patrick
Perhaps you should add an off topic button and jail?
Users always have the option of airing their grievances in a new thread.

I feel as though you have been fair to your users. I do like your efforts to clean up the sight and keep people on topics instead of name calling.

Please mark this post as off topic.

Patrick says

@errc you do have that ability, as long as you're logged in.

Just go to https://patrick.net/user/Sniper and click "ignore"

That doesn’t work. He will still log off and quote my postings and then respond. Worse still, he is on a 24/7 mission to harass everyone else and stifle the free speech of others by constantly attacking their character and intentionally disrupting open and honest discussion.

Why do you constantly skirt around the issue? Grow a set, @Patrick

So I should simply delete him again and wait for him to come back again?

Sniper is a mixed bag. He does usually have some content to his posts in spite of the personal attacks.

OK, here's what I'll do: all of Sniper's comments and posts will go into moderation until he develops a pretty clean new track record. I'll just delete the personal attacks before they get out there.

errc says

That doesn’t work. He will still log off and quote my postings and then respond.

If you have him on ignore, how do you see his posts?

Patrick says

OK, here's what I'll do: all of Sniper's comments and posts will go into moderation until he develops a pretty clean new track record.

Really?

Let's look at the totals for December in Comment Jail (and December isn't over yet) to see who has the most.

errc: 10
HappyGilmore: 8
BorderPatrol: 4
Rew: 2
Bob: 2
Sniper: 2

errc says

Worse still, he is on a 24/7 mission to harass everyone else and stifle the free speech of others by constantly attacking their character and intentionally disrupting open and honest discussion.

Honestly, based on post counts in Comment Jail, everyone can see which posters do the most harassing and attacking.

Yes, we need more changes to the rules for people who cause the least problems, because the posters calling for the changes are the real problem.