mapa_NorthAmerica
The Washington Post: Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt. November 1922

Excerpt:
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

This is an old post from an even older article, perhaps you’ve already seen it. I won’t draw any conclusions, I just thought it might be interesting to revisit. Keep in mind the world population at that time was about one third that of today. You can read the full version here.



  1. noname says:

    Global warming is like salvation, it’s a behavioral reset the masses believe is “unwise” and won’t believe until it is too late!

    Science and the masses be damned.

    • deowll says:

      Actually NOAA said the global temp fell .5 degrees C. in the last ten years but who believes them? The Brits MET said no warming for 16 + years but who believes them?

      Al Gore says we are all going to drown when the Greenland Ice sheet and Antarctic melt. Of course the Antarctic has just had record ice sheet cover and I seem to recall the Arctic has the most ice in the last 10 yrs. And of course Al bought his sea front mansion. He must be really worried.

      • dusanmal says:

        Just an additional reference point when you speak of NOAA… In their published papers (that served as a base for the famous Al Gore hockey stick graph of temperature raise) they were at least scientifically honest reporting the level of arbitrary decisions that went into it: “fudge factor” was reported to be 400% in their data. If I attempted to publish any science with 400% “fudge factor” I’d be laughed out loud, except maybe if I did what they did – publish something supporting the Ideology of human caused global warming…

      • noname says:

        Regardless what deowell or his ilk believe, “the Arctic has the most ice in the last 10 yrs”; along with temperature, insurance premiums are going up!

        Regarding the Antarctic, yes recently it has seen recent record ice cover because of global warming.

  2. anonymous coward says:

    Did they have super computers and weather satellite back in 1922?

    No?

    Well then don’t be surprised this article was off the mark.

    • LibertyLover says:

      Unless I missed something, they weren’t predicting anything.

      They were reporting on existing conditions.

      • noname says:

        hum, if you looked at McCullough map, the mythical average person would emphatically say they weren’t reporting current conditions!

        Unless you “believe” they honestly thought and reported parts of the rocky mountains where eroded, collapsed and under ocean waters with a HUGE new island land mass off the coast of Oregon!

        The map also shows an interesting HUGE new island landmass around the Bermuda triangle!

        Yeah, it’s well known; with raising seas, new HUGE island landmasses appear out of the deep depths of the oceans everywhere! Any credible scientist would certainly predict that!!!

        Shipping would so easy and cheap in that kind of fantasy world.

        Surfs Up Dude!

        • LibertyLover says:

          I assumed they didn’t have maps with such detail and color depth in 1922, so I figured McCullough was goofing around.

          Perhaps I expect too much out of other people :-)

          Re: Your Link.

          Holy Shit! Those boys wanted to surf.

          • McCullough says:

            You get it. Of course the “map” is just a graphic that accompanies the post, much like we always do. Don’t read any more into it.

          • pedro says:

            True believers: A dime a dozen.

          • noname says:

            Yes, so confident that global warming is a scam, “much like we always do” a hoax map is created to accentuate DU beliefs and games!

            No such thing as a creditability gap at DU!

          • pedro says:

            Atlantis on the map would’ve been a giveaway for the idiots. Guess idiots would be idiots…

          • noname says:

            pedro what about your “I am a man of my word” bull?

            Aren’t you going to again cry out to Uncle Dave about personal attacks.

            It hasn’t even been a month!

            boo woo for pedro…

          • pedro says:

            You felt identified by that remark? Imagine that!

            And if it were true what you say, my word lasted waaaaaaaaaaaaay longer than yours

          • noname says:

            No I didn’t feel it identified me, but I did feel sorry for you? Imagine that!

            pedro, as always you’re just too easy!

  3. fishguy says:

    The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling!

    And, “Coward”, do you wonder if they use the same computers to model global whining as they do to predict next weekend’s weather? If so, we may have a problem.

    • noname says:

      The only one yelling “The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling!” is you!

  4. Dallas says:

    Well known glaciers have entirely disappeared? Wow

  5. dusanmal says:

    This underlines my top point when dealing with global warming alarmists: we are alarmed because temperatures are higher than historical records reachable by inter-generational communication: is it warmer than when father was young, when the grandfather was young, maybe even in some cases great-grand-father… There it stops. We don’t see further and have reflex to demand that climate stands still over such times. By 1920′s Earth was already warming for a century or so. But from what long term levels? – answer that and alarm ceases. And here is the crucial data from readily available Greenland ice cores, published, peer reviewed, with errors in single digit percentages:

    http://hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/easterbrook_fig5.png

    There you can see that before warming started we suffered prolonged extreme colds on 10000 years levels. Also, despite warming and despite the fact that our grand fathers had it colder – we are still in 10% of the coldest years in the last 10000 years. Far even from an average over that time. COLD.

    So, yes it is warming. I even could care less to answer why (but for fighting lying Ideology that perverts science). Because humanity according to the graph above PROSPERED most at the hottest intervals. War and decay in cold periods. Napoleon, Hitler, 30 year war, 100 year war, dark ages, fall of Rome… in depths of cold. Prosperity of Minoans, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans (do try wearing toga in modern Rome winter) even Vikings in medieval warming – all at the peaks of warmth. Yes, icebergs are melting. So they should. They are NOT normal. Again those Vikings – Archeological remains of giant farming communities emerge from those “eternal” Greenland glaciers. People lived and farmed there to the degree still not possible after 200 years of current warming. Because starting point for current warming is Little Ice Age. COLD!

    So all this is because we instinctively want to make climate flat as Utopia and want it to be as it was for our recent ancestors, even if that climate is far from true long term average.

    So, stop the BS. And for what is warming, read real science from CERN, 2011 (oh, but you will need to interpret data by yourself as CERN directors BANNED scientists to interpret what they measured. Only publish numbers, no interpretations allowed. Putting Catholic Church vs. Copernicus and Galileo abuse to the small league of abusers against science).

    • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Luddite Science Denying Ditto Heads says:

      Hey Douche–I must be getting religion because that chart doesn’t make any sense to me. Got another link that explains it?

      1. The chart is for the last 10 K years–it doesn’t show cycles at all.

      2. -31.5 Centigrade as our current measurement doesn’t make any sense at all.

      3. I was under the impression the concern the scientists have is that having reached .400 ppm for the first time in 300K years, OUR CIVILIZATION in the next 100-200 years is going to have to deal with ocean rise of 3-6 feet, ocean acidification, with unknown cascade events of release of methane gas, termination of the ocean thermocline treadmill at the poles, rapid shift of climate zones, rapid shift of temperate zone, increased greening of plants but with attendant decrease in food production, disease vectors shifting, release of HS2, and a wrath of other difficult conditions.

      You post as if the concern were akin to only how hot/cool it might be for vacation planning….. you know???….. like you don’t understand the problem at all!

      And yet at least you post a link. Well done hominid.

      Silly Hoomans. Can’t understand shit when whatever it is has made their minds up otherwise.

      SCIENCE = CHANGE
      STUPID = ……….

    • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

      Wow, are you heretical…warming leads to prosperity….no doubt the NSA has your metadata

      • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Luddite Science Denying Ditto Heads says:

        Alfie==my heart always flies like an Eagle when you make a good one.

        Attaboy!

  6. god says:

    Cripes. Anthony Watts. The “meteorologist” who was a TV weatherman.

    Any notes about how much of a stipend he expects from the Heartland Institute, this year? The “climate skeptics” headed by a Republican lawyer.

    Care to read articles on a regular basis – written by for-real actual climatologists, other scientists? Try this one: http://www.realclimate.org

  7. deegee says:

    The governments and so-called weather scientists don’t call it “Global Warming” any more because too many of the sheep caught on to their doctored and falsified so-called reports and predictions, so now it is referred to as “Climate Change”.

    Well of course the climate changes.

    The governments just found a way to tax the sheeple for the weather changing.

    • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

      That kind of thinking will land you in the Tea Party…

      for now that’s not a problem…the irs is too busy shredding documents and passing strong magnets over drives…

      but next year…who knows.

      • deegee says:

        I do believe that mankind has been poisoning the earth for a long time, the land, the rivers and lakes, the ocean, the air.
        The issue I take with “climate change” is that most people suffer from the delusion that the climate during their lifetime should be static.

        In Canada I pay a “Carbon Tax”.
        It is supposed to be “revenue neutral”.

        Does that tax money go towards helping the environment in any way?
        Nope. It goes into the pockets of the politicians and government coffers.

  8. bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

    Liberty Lover made his first cogent post ….. EVAR! Yes–just one measurement of one limited sector of the Globe.

    I do have to wonder what you noobs think the scientific process really is? You seem to demand a perfect theory out of the chute, with no disagreement or errors. In other words: all you can understand is religion and you use that paint brush to color everything.

    Silly Hoomans.

    Lies, stupidity and BS fully engaged, Sea Level continues to rise:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

    How come?

    • ± says:

      Will continue to wait for your first cogent post.

      • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Luddite Science Denying Ditto Heads says:

        I feel your pain. Waiting for that which you cannot perceive. Whaddabitch.

        Cogent Argument with a Supporting Link = The least that bobbo ever offers.

        Mindless whining bullshit with no argument, position, insight, or link? = An excuse to deny reality and wait for Pink Unicorns to appear.

        Oh……. the Horror!

        • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

          If there were an Olympics for stupid, bobbo is the marathon winner, with Dallas as his sidekick:

          http://dvorak.org/blog/2009/04/30/caption-this-photo-34/

          • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

            …singing “We’re so pretty, so very pretty…”

          • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Luddite Science Denying Ditto Heads says:

            OH ALFIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            I clicked on the link ASSUMING it wasn’t the too worn tennis pic. Whats that got to do with marathons????

            Keep this up, and I’ll have ground to never trust you again!

          • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Luddite Science Denying Ditto Heads says:

            Crap. Forgot to include your other chestnut: “Your brain to a pea is like a 4 lane highway to a razor blade.”===or whatever dumbass school yard taunt you use.

            Ha, ha. I crack myself up. Alfie cracks me up. Am I Alfie?

            Horrors!!!!!!!! (The error of the undistributed middle)

          • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

            No, “if we put your brain on the edge of a razor, it would look like a pea rolling down a four lane highway.”

            Sir Issac Newton nailed gravity…no one else did after….he said its from God…

            Hence its inexplicable to our scientists…and they’ll never get it right…

            Some even think it bleeds into our verse…from a parallel verse….such is their desperation.

          • noname says:

            “Sir Issac Newton nailed gravity…no one else did after”

            Pathetic you never heard of Einstein!

            Always sad to see the science illiterate trying to make a point with blatant ignorance!

            You don’t have to be literate to spell Sir Isaac Newton name correctly.

    • MikeN says:

      Sea Level continues to rise:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

      How come?

      Based on your own chart, we can say it’s not because of CO2. The trend from 1870 to 1970s is 6 inches per hundred years. The trend from 1970s to now, which is when the global warming temperature rise started, is 2.5 inches /40 years. No acceleration, and even a deceleration if we look at that last little downturn that has been cleverly hidden by the updated figure on Wikipedia.

      So if sea level was rising before large amounts of CO2 and is rising at the same pace now, we can sea that sea level rise due to CO2 is 0.

      • pedro says:

        What’s really rising is the amount of global warming generated by the hot air coming from so much COBS2

      • Tim says:

        It’s because of a modulation of the volume of the ocean basins, mostly. Plate tectonics, advection, convection, and all.

  9. Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

    Illustrates just how wrong Al Gore (of Al Jezeera Unibomber fame) and is ilk are to equate scientific consensus with scientific fact….

    Just before being overturned, theories are usually the opinion of the majority…until they aren’t, that is.

    Although they believe the Higss has been seen, lets recall that accounts for only 5% of matter, dark energy, dark matter, gravity…or the ether that allows light to travel in a vacuum, general theory of relativity…remain unexplained…

    Not even hinted at. A particle theory that applies to only 5% of particles…isn’t much a of theory at all…even if it is the consensus.

    • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Luddite Science Denying Ditto Heads says:

      Hey Dumbass Alfie, and your lap dog running Ilk: the consensus opinion of qualified scientists is overthrown only by the submission of a better theory which then beocmes the consensus opinion of qualified scientists.

      NOT the process of three loons on their knees writhing in some self imposed denial….physical, mental…

      Ha, ha. Luddites on the March.

      • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

        Proving my point…consensus isn’t fact…facts can’t be overthrown.

        Dumbass

        • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Luddite Science Denying Ditto Heads says:

          Jesus Alfie==thats really stupid==even for you……MEANING===you have posted just the opposite notion.

          I guess like lots of the folks here, there are just some subjects (like everything but Religion, and then Religion too?) that you get stupid on.

          Name a “fact” that is not so except by consensus opinion?

          Name a “fact” that has not changed over time?

          Go Ahead==Me and Jebus Dare you===like going from Old to New Testament. Any change of unchangeable facts there?

          OF COURSE you will deny any changes in the two texts. Thats how brain vapid you are.

          • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

            Facts don’t change, if they did then they are not facts.

            And its easy to go from one Testament to the other, as God is One and He wrote both through His servants.

            Re the Higgs and the appearance of being substantial:

            And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. (Col 1:17 NKJ)

            Its elegantly stated, all things exist via God’s concurrence, like a matrix….a holo deck.

            All in the infinite Mind of God has its coherence, its appearance of being substance…

            Hence there is no dark energy or matter…there is only the will and purpose of God impelling the expansion, because that’s what He wants to do.

          • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

            This should frighten you…but for us who love God and His righteousness, its wonderful:

            21 “that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us… (Joh 17:21 NKJ)

            28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all. (1Co 15:28 NKJ)

            We will worship God in His Temple:

            22 But I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.
            23 The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light. (Rev 21:22-23 NKJ)

            So while we experience the infinite universe, we never cease to be in God, in His love, like being in a warm wind, knowing where it comes from…and where its going….on our face and head like a warm oil being poured upon it from heaven…

            What is a terror to the wicked, will be joy and peace to us…

            23 Behold, the whirlwind of the LORD Goes forth with fury, A continuing whirlwind; It will fall violently on the head of the wicked.
            24 The fierce anger of the LORD will not return until He has done it, And until He has performed the intents of His heart. In the latter days you will consider it.</b
            (Jer 30:23-24 NKJ)

        • ± says:

          It’s good that your “facts” can’t (yet) be imposed upon the rest of us.
           

  10. John Cheever says:

    The only thing that would melt the iceberg in my heart is Molly Wood, Ms. Micki, Adam Curry, and John C. Dvorak in the new No Agenda Network Podcast “Micki & Molly’s After Hours Tub Fun with Adam & John”.

    In the Morning (after hours)…

  11. pedro says:

    According to those reports, we should be dead by now. They were partially right, most people nowadays are braindead.

  12. pedro says:

    Regarding the picture: Too bad that scenario is not real. How much good to humanity would do if cuba just went underwater.

    • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

      That’s unfair; the Cuban “Obama: Castro won, no reason to hate the people.

  13. Dan Pangburn says:

    Four papers on line, that you may find of interest, provide some eye-opening insight on the cause of change to average global temperature and why it has stopped warming. The papers are straight-forward calculations using readily available data up to May, 2013.

    The first one is ‘Global warming made simple’ at http://lowaltitudeclouds.blogspot.com/ . It shows, with simple thermal radiation calculations, how a tiny change in the amount of low-altitude clouds could account for half of the average global temperature change in the 20th century, and what could have caused that tiny cloud change. (The other half of the temperature change is from net average natural ocean oscillation which is dominated by the PDO)

    The second paper is ‘Natural Climate change has been hiding in plain sight’ at http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html . This paper presents a simple equation that calculates average global temperatures since they have been accurately measured world wide (about 1895) with an accuracy of 90%, irrespective of whether the influence of CO2 is included or not. The equation uses a proxy which is the time-integral of sunspot numbers. A graph is included which shows the calculated trajectory overlaid on measurements.

    Change to the level of atmospheric CO2 had no significant effect on average global temperature.

    A third paper, ‘The End of Global Warming’ at http://endofgw.blogspot.com/ expands recent (since 1996) measurements and includes a graph showing the growing separation between the rising CO2 and not-rising average global temperature.

    The fourth paper http://consensusmistakes.blogspot.com/ exposes some of the mistakes that have been made by the ‘Consensus’ and the IPCC

  14. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Luddite Science Denying Ditto Heads says:

    Dangerous Dan Dithers:

    Hey dan—any of your “BLOGSPOTS” been peer reviewed???

    AFTER poking holes in the long held, modified over time, peer reviewed, general consensus of qualified scientists computer models and predictions, WHAT ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO do your blogspots propose? IOW:

    what will happen to the atmosphere/ocean/our world/hooman civilization if we keep shitting into our atmosphere?

    You silly anti-science people demonstrate a pretty egregious case of: MAGICAL THINKING. Strip the globe of heavy vegetation, burn coal and oil for 100′s of years and “nothing will happen as a result because…….. well because we can imagine inconsistencies in the best scientific predictions available.”

    I wish you (and you ILK) could be branded with this opinion on your foreheads. Its a shame you should never be allowed to hide or avoid.

    Just plain stupid. ((I don’t know if being PAID to mislead is actually worse or not. Ain’t no cure for stupid. Being paid for opinions will stop when the money does.))

    Idiot.

  15. Uncle Patso says:

    The automatic knee-jerk response to any mention of weather or climate or temperature, etc. on this blog is impressive. Someone somewhere is spending beaucoups of bucks with the best PR and advertising brains to spread the denial story, and spreading it thick. The conditioned response is even more rabid and backed up by more pseudo-science claptrap than the anti-evolution industry.

    It is time to start learning how to live more like the Amish, I’m afraid (except with fewer kids).

    • pedro says:

      Denial stories?

      You would have lived the life during the ice age!

      • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Luddite Science Denying Ditto Heads says:

        What does that mean Pedro?

        I mean….. really.

        Head up your ass stupid.

        Thanks Patso. You have your eye on the balls.

        • pedro says:

          As stupid as a hockey stick graph.

          I’m gonna take yours & Patso’s advise and move to Atlantis

  16. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

    Alfie does crack me up:

    TEA Dud says:
    6/29/2013 at 4:20 am

    No, “if we put your brain on the edge of a razor, it would look like a pea rolling down a four lane highway.” /// That is better. Do you have it tattooed on your nether region?

    Sir Issac Newton nailed gravity…no one else did after….he said its from God…

    Hence its inexplicable to our scientists…and they’ll never get it right… /// Ha, ha.—you remind me of Bill OReally: “The tide comes in, the tide goes out…. you can’t explain it.” Talk about science retards. ((YOU, OReally, and Climate Change Deniers==not Newton))

    Some even think it bleeds into our verse…from a parallel verse….such is their desperation. /// I think thats White Hole Radiation/streaming. Never heard it applied to gravity. All depends on what fevered dream your having?

    Keep up the excellent posting Alfie. You can’t be replaced…. nor would you be if we could.

  17. CrankyGeeksFan says:

    Here’s a whistleblower from 1991 that says that “the Greenhouse Effect” was discoverered in the 1940s. He said then that the effects will be known in “10 to 20 years maximum” with significant melting of the polar ice caps putting the world in “serious global confusion”.

    The whistleblower connects this with colonization of Mars.

    Look at the 1:55 mark from the video below:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDIM0sRh5R4

  18. Dan Pangburn says:

    I wonder how much wider the separation between the rising CO2 level and not-rising average global temperature will need to get for some people to recognize that the AGW theory was a mistake and that their lack of broad scientific knowledge has made them gullible.

    • bobbo, the iconoclastic non-conflating non-dogmatic existential Idol defiling cynosure says:

      Pan Dangturd: you do understand a trend line is made up of jigs and jags? How come you only post on the jigs and not the jags…. a jag off so to speak???

      Ohhhhhh……. I so do really wish such retardation could be stamped on your forehead for all to see.

      “I am a Science Denier!”

      Silly Hooman.

  19. NewformatSux says:

    >Care to read articles on a regular basis – written by for-real actual climatologists, other scientists? Try this one: realclimate.org

    RealClimate went hysterical with a post called Hey Ya!mal that attacked the skeptic Steve McIntyre for criticizing a paper by some scientists in England, work that eventually led to Climategate leaking of e-mails.

    Now we see that the scientists have updated their work and now agree with Steve McIntyre, yet somehow RealClimate made no mention of this detail when describing the paper.

    http://climateaudit.org/2013/06/28/cru-abandons-yamal-superstick/

    • bobbo, the iconoclastic non-conflating non-dogmatic existential Idol defiling cynosure says:

      …..so NFS… what does this mean to you? With EVERY organized scientific group qualified to opine on AGW agreeing there is GW and most likely its caused by humans I see the trials and tribulations foibles and errors of individuals to be expected. Science is after all done by people.

      What is your take?

      • Guyver says:

        With EVERY organized scientific group qualified to opine on AGW agreeing there is GW and most likely its caused by humans I see the trials and tribulations foibles and errors of individuals to be expected.

        A liberal differentiating between AGW and GW?!?!?!?! Shocking!

        No one has yet established that GW is actually being driven by human activities. The AGW theory is largely based off of correlation, simulations based off of assumptions, and people who are “qualified” on paper opining in the absence of the scientific method and empirical evidence.

        Science is after all done by people.

        What is your take?

        Which is why there is such a thing as the scientific method and the gathering of empirical evidence. Inconvenient for science charlatans.

    • Tim says:

      I used to visit RealClimate some … I got tired of the true believers and the *denier* bashing. In particular, one NGO hack http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/about/

      I gave up on that blog when they did not bother to correct a critique on Criton’s State of Fear where they totally role-reversed the bad guys from good as to who was performing environmental terrorism. It was a glaring reversal.

      Upon pressing *Mike* {greenfyre} about the carbon tax, he would always demand proof of any kind of tax — being a scientist and all.

  20. Guyver says:

    Could be worse. We could have had scientists talking about Global Cooling about 40 years ago.

    • bobbo, the iconoclastic non-conflating non-dogmatic existential Idol defiling cynosure says:

      Hey Guyver–whats up? Things slow in the foreclosure business?

      Never get tired of posting the same defective arguments do you. Always a trap for the unwary. Of no help to advancing your own position though. Very weak. Either you have an emotional block to challenging your own first impression of this subject …. or you are being paid one way or the other to be a shill. Can’t tell which it is as you have shown evidence (sic!) of both.

      To your antecedent though…the consensus of qualified scientists never where of that opinion. As the current minimal opposition of todays consensus, the “Earth is Cooling” crowd was very spotting and minimal with the issue taken up by the popular press. With any depth and honesty, your critique actually supports AGW.

      It does totally suck to be you. But the ego is a powerful device against reality. I’m sure in a short time (relative to the trends clearly in place) you will change your tune. “What, me Worry?”

      Ha, ha. Stoopid Hooman.

      • Guyver says:

        Never get tired of posting the same defective arguments do you.

        You should consider using a mirror instead of a telescope. :)

        To your antecedent though…the consensus of qualified scientists never where of that opinion.

        Logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

        But the ego is a powerful device against reality.

        I’m skeptic. You claim to know something. Your “proof” has consistently been a logical fallacy of appealing to authority. You should consider revising your weak argument.

        Otherwise when you don’t have the answers to prove what you claim to “know”, you simply point to others who claim to know something based on their degree / profession (never mind the scientific method gets thrown out the window). This you laughably call “science”.

        A fascinating theory on ego, but it seems that if someone doesn’t accept your non-scientific rhetoric that you simply say that such persons must have an ego? Interesting personality trait you have when you fail to be persuasive on what you claim to know. It would seem that you may have a bigger ego than you let on. :D

  21. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

    Not that its needed, but always good to be reminded, how difficult (multifactorial) climate science is the linked article is about how everything in the Climate Computer Models could be correct except for one element that throws “predictions” all off==such as here, how wet is the climate/weather going to be? And aerosols were not adequately understood/measured/calculated.

    Allowing for all sorts of mischief, its NOT just one variable that the Model has wrong. Who know how many elements are wrong or not even accounted for???…… who knows?????

    And yet the sea level keeps rising and Magical Thinking does not even propose an alternate reality.

    so it goes………..

    http://nbcnews.com/science/when-it-rains-rising-carbon-emissions-finally-making-world-wetter-6C10486594

    • Guyver says:

      Not that its needed, but always good to be reminded, how difficult (multifactorial) climate science is the linked article is about how everything in the Climate Computer Models could be correct except for one element that throws “predictions” all off==such as here, how wet is the climate/weather going to be? And aerosols were not adequately understood/measured/calculated.

      Could be?!?!?!? Yet you speak with such certainty when you defend the assumptions made in climate computer models as though this is empirical evidence in of itself. Never mind that these models are based off of assumptions and have yet to make any near-term predictions.

      And yet the sea level keeps rising and Magical Thinking does not even propose an alternate reality.

      so it goes………..

      And yet this doesn’t stop you from making another logical fallacy of a hasty conclusion.

  22. MikeN says:

    What you’re not going to post the Wikipedia link that disproves your point?

    Sea level rising at the same rate as the previous century, maybe slower. CO2 having no effect.

    • Guyver says:

      Sea level rising at the same rate as the previous century, maybe slower. CO2 having no effect.

      In Bobo’s world, science experts have reached a consensus that correlation is causation.

      A scientific-minded person needs no other proof. If you cannot accept that, then you most certainly have an ego about yourself. :)

  23. MikeN says:

    http://tinyurl.com/am8my8w

    The Great Green Con

    Money graph is this

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/03/16/article-2294560-18B8846F000005DC-184_634x427.jpg

    Such certainty of high warming, and it isn’t happening.
    Surely they weren’t exaggerating the threat and extent of global warming to scare the public? Given what we’ve seen, it is more likely that the models and scientists who claim a small amount of warming from CO2 are correct than the Joe Romms who claim major impacts.

  24. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

    Hey boys—after YEARS of me posting the rising sea levels you have come up with a “new” argument: “Sea level rising at the same rate as the previous century, maybe slower. CO2 having no effect.” ////// My, my, my. Well, lets look at the chart once more before we tar and feather you on the faulty logic:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

    Well, the first chart only goes back to 1870 and at that left edge it appears very flat….but to my untrained eye the chart appears to have one average slope from 1870 to 1930 where there is a break and the average slope increases?

    I wonder which on of our eyeballs is not functioning too good?

    Maybe you picked up this factoid from the written material? If so please copy and paste. Or maybe you got this talking point from an oil based sleaze sheet? If so, please copy and paste and link?

    But for grins, lets say you were correct? That sea level rise is not increasing–its just a steady inexorable rise? That would mean what in your alchemy?

    bwhahahaha–I could compose one theory consistent with your statement===but I wonder if you can?

    Stun and Amaze us?

    • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

      Correction: “But for grins, lets say you were correct? That THE RATE OF sea level rise is not increasing–its just a steady inexorable rise? That would mean what in your alchemy?”

      AKA–co2 in the atmosphere put there by humans is only going to kills us at a steady rate and not an increasingly faster rate?

      How anti-science are you nubs willing to expose yourselves as?

      • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

        ….. and just looking at the graph again–appears to be another rate increase around 1990.

        You two are now denying (see the “science denial” part right there?) that co2 is a green house gas.

        dopes you are.

        • Guyver says:

          You two are now denying (see the “science denial” part right there?) that co2 is a green house gas.

          Confusing Cause and Effect combined with Straw Man / Red Herring.

          Of course CO2 is a green house gas. No one has stated otherwise.

          The disagreement is how each of us is coming to conclusions based off of correlation. Water vapor dwarfs all green house gases. In quantifiable numbers, mother nature expels about 30x more CO2 than all of humanity.

          During the Roman times, the Earth was much warmer than it is now.

          People knew back when the Black Plague was going on that cats were the cause of it before they realized it was because the cats were hunting the rats which carried the fleas who were infected with what was likely the Bubonic Plague.

          Is CO2 the cats or the fleas? Your science of popularity claims correlation is causation.

      • Guyver says:

        AKA–co2 in the atmosphere put there by humans is only going to kills us at a steady rate and not an increasingly faster rate?

        How anti-science are you nubs willing to expose yourselves as?

        Sounds like you’re establishing a causal relationship specifically on the gas we all exhale or expel due to our refusal to live in caves.

        Where’s the scientific empirical evidence that additional human CO2 is CAUSING all of the climate change? Computer simulations based off of assumptions?

        Your best “rebuttal” has largely been answers based on one of the following logical fallacies:

        Appeal to Authority
        Appeal to Popularity
        Appeal to Belief / Consequences of Belief
        Confusing Cause and Effect
        Ignoring Common Cause
        Hasty Conclusion
        Straw Man / Red Herring

        Sounds like the more you’re asked to provide scientific answers, the more logical fallacies you try to defecate. :)

    • MikeN says:

      Scientists have been saying that global warming from CO2 started being noticeable in the late 70s. So I take 100 years on that chart and see 6 inches of rise, and the forty years since is 2.5 inches. Yes, you can compare different length periods and find rises and falls. I’m merely taking the point that the scientists like Tamino at Open Mind are declaring is the start of manmade global warming, to separate from high temperatures seen in the 1930s.

      • MikeN says:

        Rate without CO2=rate with CO2.
        Rate with CO2=rate without CO2+effect of CO2.

        Calculate effect of CO2.

      • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with movie references says:

        How very sloppy, BS, and cherry picking you are.

        You deny the decades long studies of EVERY ORGANIZED GROUP OF QUALIFIED SCIENTISTS and their peer reviewed work and substitute “what some guy said”?

        Silly Hooman.

        • MikeN says:

          The scientists were the ones doing the cherry picking. Starting in the late a970s and declaring that’s when global warming’s effect stared, that you have to look at long term trends. Well 1979-1998 is 19 years, pretty close to 1998-2013. You can actually declare no statistically significant warming going back a bit earlier, so you now have two nearly equal time periods. Back when it seemed safe, they were saying things like you need 17 years of no warming to disprove the models(IPCC Chapter Lead Author Ben Santer). Now they are desperately trying to figure out how to walk that back.

          • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

            Mickey—you really are sounding like a shill. From other posts, you have access to many of the facts about AGW but you post like a High School debate ingenue making basic mistakes…as if valid arguments/analysis don’t exist.

            There is an organized self disciplined peer reviewed BODY of information that has been issuing written reports making predictions. Then there is chaff and noise from all sorts of “other” interests. The anonymous “they” that you repeatedly refer to.

            YOU have NO CREDIBILITY until you name names, quotes, links. Until such time, you are just a dink.

        • Guyver says:

          You deny the decades long studies of EVERY ORGANIZED GROUP OF QUALIFIED SCIENTISTS and their peer reviewed work and substitute “what some guy said”?

          Appeal to authority / popularity.

          There are many in the scientific community who question the claims of your “every organized group of qualified scientists”. Consider it a peer review of sorts. But for whatever reason it’s met with hostility and largely ignored by the mainstream media because it’s not popular.

    • MikeN says:

      Six inches to one foot of sea level rise doesn’t frighten me.
      Even IPCC worst case estimates are pretty low, no Day After Tomorrow, flooding of skyscrapers, to the point where scientists just dropped the claim because they couldn’t make it scary enough, er couldn’t get a confident degree of certainty. They couldn’t get enough people to sign up for ice sheets melting in Greenland and Antarctica, mainly because it is too cold in Antarctica for global warming to melt the ice.

      • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

        Jesus you are a dipshit. The rise keeps on going. If “you” are not feard by 6-7 inches, how about feet? Meters? Yards???

        You see, until the co2 is removed instead of added to, the effect just keeps on going. Why should you be afraid of “anything” 100-200 years out? Are you likewise not afraid of impacts by comets 1000 years from now????

        How manly.

        • MikeN says:

          Well if that was the actual possibility, you’d have a point, but the scientists and the facts and your own link to sea level rise chart say otherwise.

          Effect of doubling CO2 by itself is about 1C. Not a big deal.

  25. MikeN says:

    Turns out the IPCC has been declaring not too much sea level rise for some time now.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/03/new-study-using-grace-data-shows-global-sea-levels-rising-less-than-7-inches-per-century/

    • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

      Don’t even need to look. I’ll grant the point. Only 7 inches per century.

      A measure of your care for the hooman race.

      By the way….. a fail on your part.

      • MikeN says:

        Uh oh, before granting the point of 7 inches per century, did you check with the scientific reports if it was within their stated range? Not doing so might make you a skeptic or a denier, and they arrest deniers in Germany. You don’t want to live your life in jail in Germany, do you?

        All that is besides the point, that the sea level rise, which you have said is the validation of scientific claims with regards to CO2, is actually validating skeptic claims that it is not as bad as they say. There are more and more papers being issued saying warming from CO2 will be low, not high, despite the alarmists’ firewall to keep out such papers. They even got one editor to resign for the crime of publishing a reasonable paper.

  26. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

    Guyver says:
    7/3/2013 at 7:53 am

    You deny the decades long studies of EVERY ORGANIZED GROUP OF QUALIFIED SCIENTISTS and their peer reviewed work and substitute “what some guy said”?

    Appeal to authority / popularity. /////// No Dumbshit its not==except at first blush. The counter THAT YOU USE is appeal to “NO Authority.” Note that the Appeal to Authority analysis does not stop at that claim alone. It continues. It continues on to the validity of that authority. Like Mickey==you make arguments that appeal only to the ignorant. Mine is not an “appeal” to authority but instead is a REFERENCE TO QUALIFIED AUTHORITY. Quite different.

    There are many/// in fact, no, there are not many. Again, this is your appeal to No Authority in about the weakest formulation of it there is. HAW= HAW!!! You don’t limit your own analysis to defects you find, you merely use whatever dumbass comment works at the half sentence level. What a dope!

    in the scientific community who question the claims of your “every organized group of qualified scientists”. Consider it a peer review of sorts. /// No. Its not peer review. Consider your thinking a turd in your pants of sorts.

    But for whatever reason it’s met with hostility and largely ignored by the mainstream media because it’s not popular. /// I only wish that were true. Your BS claims are met with much too much respect as if it were a qualified opposing view==which on the order of Pink Unicorns… it is not.

    • MikeN says:

      Not very valid when they lie to the public.

      The other hide the decline e-mail:

      Yeah, it wasn’t so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used
      to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a
      longer – 10 year – period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you
      might expect from La Nina etc.

      Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also.
      Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I
      give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects
      and the recent cold-ish years.

      Mick Kelly

  27. MikeN says:

    > been issuing written reports making predictions.

    And the predictions aren’t panning out, which suggests a reevaluation is in order.

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/03/16/article-2294560-18B8846F000005DC-184_634x427.jpg