'The globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for May 2015 was the highest for the month of May since record keeping began in 1880. March–May and the year-to-date (January–May) globally averaged temperature were also record high.'

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

The new version is based on 'ocean (ERSST version 4.0.0) dataset'

'Q. What are the corrections to the ERSST dataset?

A. Version 4 of the ERSST dataset improves or corrects for several factors related to sea-surface temperature (SST) measurements. These include: updated and substantially more complete input data from ships and buoys, improved metadata associated with these observations, updated SST quality control procedures, revised SST anomaly evaluation methods, updated corrections to ship SSTs using nighttime marine air temperature, accounting for differences inherent in buoy (relative to ship-borne) observations, and improved methods of identifying and using persistent statistical relationships between neighboring regions to help validate observations and address missing data. Complete information on these changes is available in Huang et al. (2015).'

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2015/5/supplemental/page-1/

That is the Karl et al (2015) paper.

remember this?

' Re: 71 new papers 2013, Sun controls climate not CO2
Reply #43 - Jun 2nd, 2015 at 4:38pm Quote
I see NOAA, fresh from a "new version of the dataset" in 2014, which somehow, unrelated, gave us "the hottest year evah", is going to update the dataset again, next week. Any bets on a new "hottest year evah"? '

You're the biggest Koch puppet evah.

Marla wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 4:01pm:

You're the biggest Koch puppet evah.

And that makes YOU the biggest Goreaid drinker on earth..

On earth but not evah?

I can live with that.

Marla, the Karl et al (2015) paper had a self-admitted significance of 10%. And they called that good. I suggest you get a good book on statistical significance and find out what a 10% significance really means.

Alternatively you can use wiki; the results are the same. 5% is good significance, 10% is weak.


So for Karl et al 10% is p weak.

Do you think Karl et al got Koch to write the report?

'You're the biggest Koch puppet evah. '

Damn, they still haven't paid me.

To even suggest the sun alone controls climate is flat out ignorance; the causes of climate change (which is real by the way) are far more complex. Percentage means nothing. As for NOAA, take them with a grain of salt as they constantly update their data with grant money.

Sorry, where have i ever said 'the sun alone controls climate?

You should pay more attention; your Koch phobia is getting the better of you.
But thank you for the tip on NOAA. Fancy a government agency 'cooking' the books.

lee wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 4:32pm:

Sorry, where have i ever said 'the sun alone controls climate?

Not you  specifically Mr. Self-Victimization: Re: 71 new papers 2013, Sun controls climate not CO2


lee wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 4:32pm:

You should pay more attention; your Koch phobia is getting the better of you.But thank you for the tip on NOAA. Fancy a government agency 'cooking' the books.

So your lame post was nothing more than a swipe at NOAA?
Don't quit your day job for a lab coat anytime soon, okay?

Marla wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 4:04pm:

On earth but not evah? I can live with that.

Strangely, I understand that.....however (or howevah) constantly using the Koch Brothers as a response to any and all comments that don't 'toe the AGW party line' really just makes you look like an imbecile.

Well, as long as you continue to post their funded propaganda and blatant lies on climate change an imbecile is what I'll be.

Marla wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 4:23pm:

To even suggest the sun alone controls climate is flat out ignorance; the causes of climate change (which is real by the way) are far more complex. Percentage means nothing. As for NOAA, take them with a grain of salt as they constantly update their data with grant money.

NOAA are rapidly becoming a joke.  The 're did' the ocean level data and now amazingly. it is in 100% agreement with IPCC predictions.  Now they are doing the same with surface temperature data and guess what?  the pause in warming... NO LONGER EXISTS.  mind you, this is in keeping with the climate hysterics who claim that the Medieval Warm Period and the little ice age - all well documented - did not in fact happen.

NOAA and NASA have degenerated into the worst examples of climate science fraud around.  Forget Climategate, the real scoundrels are NASA.  IN early 2008 they declared that 2007 showed substantial COOLING.  A few months later, 2007 magically became a HOT year and no record exists on their website of the previous announcment which was heralded around the world.  these two bodies have become a disgrace.

Marla wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 4:36pm:

Not you  specifically Mr. Self-Victimization: Re: 71 new papers 2013, Sun controls climate not CO2

But this was my posting; so by inference it was directed at me.

You really ought to brush up on your technique. It makes my first assumption of you appear right.

lee wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 4:48pm:

But...

Again, don't quit your day job.

In actual fact I've never said the climate doesn't change.

Now about that 'an imbecile is what I'll be' - ...

Marla wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 4:49pm:

Again, don't quit your day job.

I'm retired. ;D ;D

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 4:47pm:

NOAA are rapidly becoming a joke.  The 're did' the ocean level data and now amazingly. it is in 100% agreement with IPCC predictions.  Now they are doing the same with surface temperature data and guess what?  the pause in warming... NO LONGER EXISTS.  mind you, this is in keeping with the climate hysterics who claim that the Medieval Warm Period and the little ice age - all well documented - did not in fact happen. NOAA and NASA have degenerated into the worst examples of climate science fraud around.  Forget Climategate, the real scoundrels are NASA.  IN early 2008 they declared that 2007 showed substantial COOLING.  A few months later, 2007 magically became a HOT year and no record exists on their website of the previous announcment which was heralded around the world.  these two bodies have become a disgrace.

I'm no fan of NOAA. All the speculation that surrounds them they will report anything on climate for grant money is mostly likely true. They either underestimate or dramatize the weather. However, you can't lie on temperature recorded data itself. Arizona, for example, is currently experiencing one of it hottest summers with temperatures the highest they have ever been since recording temperature data.

The planet is getting hotter.

lee wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 4:52pm:

Marla wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 4:49pm: Again, don't quit your day job. I'm retired. ;D ;D

Well, we can all sleep that much easier at night.

Marla wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 4:57pm:

Well, we can all sleep that much easier at night.

Nope, I and most others have to hope 'numpties' grow up.

Marla wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 4:56pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 4:47pm: NOAA are rapidly becoming a joke.  The 're did' the ocean level data and now amazingly. it is in 100% agreement with IPCC predictions.  Now they are doing the same with surface temperature data and guess what?  the pause in warming... NO LONGER EXISTS.  mind you, this is in keeping with the climate hysterics who claim that the Medieval Warm Period and the little ice age - all well documented - did not in fact happen. NOAA and NASA have degenerated into the worst examples of climate science fraud around.  Forget Climategate, the real scoundrels are NASA.  IN early 2008 they declared that 2007 showed substantial COOLING.  A few months later, 2007 magically became a HOT year and no record exists on their website of the previous announcment which was heralded around the world.  these two bodies have become a disgrace. I'm no fan of NOAA. All the speculation that surrounds them they will report anything on climate for grant money is mostly likely true. They either underestimate or dramatize the weather. However, you can't lie on temperature recorded data itself. Arizona, for example, is currently experiencing one of it hottest summers with temperatures the highest they have ever been since recording temperature data. The planet is getting hotter.

no... ARIZONA is getting hotter.  and the key word you didnt understand was 'ONE' of its hottest summers meaning it has been hotter in the past.  And the rest of the USA and Europe is cooler.

BTW, the notion that you cant lie on temperature recorded data is cute, if astonishingly naive.  Perhaps you should read up on ClimateGate.  Or perhaps read how NOAA is now 'correcting' historical temperature data and perhaps you will be one of the few that thinks 'correcting' doesnt mean 'manipulating'.

lee wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 3:04pm:

'The globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for May 2015 was the highest for the month of May since record keeping began in 1880. March–May and the year-to-date (January–May) globally averaged temperature were also record high.' https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/ The new version is based on 'ocean (ERSST version 4.0.0) dataset' 'Q. What are the corrections to the ERSST dataset? A. Version 4 of the ERSST dataset improves or corrects for several factors related to sea-surface temperature (SST) measurements. These include: updated and substantially more complete input data from ships and buoys, improved metadata associated with these observations, updated SST quality control procedures, revised SST anomaly evaluation methods, updated corrections to ship SSTs using nighttime marine air temperature, accounting for differences inherent in buoy (relative to ship-borne) observations, and improved methods of identifying and using persistent statistical relationships between neighboring regions to help validate observations and address missing data. Complete information on these changes is available in Huang et al. (2015).' https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2015/5/supplemental/page-1/ That is the Karl et al (2015) paper. remember this? ' Re: 71 new papers 2013, Sun controls climate not CO2 Reply #43 - Jun 2nd, 2015 at 4:38pm Quote I see NOAA, fresh from a "new version of the dataset" in 2014, which somehow, unrelated, gave us "the hottest year evah", is going to update the dataset again, next week. Any bets on a new "hottest year evah"? '

I heard the anthropogenic global warming gravy train ran past NASA and NOAA.

Quite a few green backs fell of at strategically marked points on the map.

As long the bankers fund AGW in some sort of hope to giving birth to the carbon derivatives market.

Even well established scientific organisations like NASA will get oiled and sing on the big stage that Anthropogenic global warming is real.

I wouldn't put my left knacker on it, but yeah they might turn around and say its the warmest everything...???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYH3dSxCyCw

lee wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 3:04pm:

'The globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for May 2015 was the highest for the month of May since record keeping began in 1880.

135 years out of 4.54 billion.

Nice going.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 6:10pm:

lee wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 3:04pm: 'The globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for May 2015 was the highest for the month of May since record keeping began in 1880. 130 years out of 4.54 billion. Nice going.

and even better they got ALL THE DATA from every source on the planet and processed it in... three weeks.

yeah right.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 6:25pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 6:10pm: lee wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 3:04pm: 'The globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for May 2015 was the highest for the month of May since record keeping began in 1880. 135 years out of 4.54 billion. Nice going. and even better they got ALL THE DATA from every source on the planet and processed it in... three weeks. yeah right.

Hard to imagine how anyone could think that 135 years is a significant period of time, when dealing with this subject.

If they weren't so serious, it'd almost be funny.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 6:28pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 6:25pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 6:10pm: lee wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 3:04pm: 'The globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for May 2015 was the highest for the month of May since record keeping began in 1880. 135 years out of 4.54 billion. Nice going. and even better they got ALL THE DATA from every source on the planet and processed it in... three weeks. yeah right. Hard to imagine how anyone could think that 135 years is a significant period of time, when dealing with this subject. If they weren't so serious, it'd almost be funny.

Its the same way people keep having a meltdown over "hottest since..." and 'driest since' while apparently forgetting that 'since' means it has happened before - and worse.

IN general, people are stupid and gullible.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 6:37pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 6:28pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 6:25pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 6:10pm: lee wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 3:04pm: 'The globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for May 2015 was the highest for the month of May since record keeping began in 1880. 135 years out of 4.54 billion. Nice going. and even better they got ALL THE DATA from every source on the planet and processed it in... three weeks. yeah right. Hard to imagine how anyone could think that 135 years is a significant period of time, when dealing with this subject. If they weren't so serious, it'd almost be funny. Its the same way people keep having a meltdown over "hottest since..." and 'driest since' while apparently forgetting that 'since' means it has happened before - and worse. IN general, people are stupid and gullible.

Indeed.

It must be all that hot weather.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 6:28pm:

Hard to imagine how anyone could think that 135 years is a significant period of time, when dealing with this subject. If they weren't so serious, it'd almost be funny.

Even more so when you consider that the temperature change that has caused this mass hysteria is still well within natural variation.  ;D

Marla wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 4:23pm:

To even suggest the sun alone controls climate is flat out ignorance; the causes of climate change (which is real by the way) are far more complex. Percentage means nothing. As for NOAA, take them with a grain of salt as they constantly update their data with grant money.

Marla, I think you'll find that 'percentage' means a great deal in things like climate change and other situations,when the base argument is what percentage of the change is natural and what percentage is man made..

If human action is only responsible for 10% of the temperature increase, then stopping all fossil fuel use and human Co2 production would only slow or reduce the upper limit by 10%. So, instead of a 2 C increase by 2100 (or whenever it is) there'd only be a 1.9 C increase.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 6:37pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 6:28pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 6:25pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 6:10pm: lee wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 3:04pm: 'The globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for May 2015 was the highest for the month of May since record keeping began in 1880. 135 years out of 4.54 billion. Nice going. and even better they got ALL THE DATA from every source on the planet and processed it in... three weeks. yeah right. Hard to imagine how anyone could think that 135 years is a significant period of time, when dealing with this subject. If they weren't so serious, it'd almost be funny. Its the same way people keep having a meltdown over "hottest since..." and 'driest since' while apparently forgetting that 'since' means it has happened before - and worse. IN general, people are stupid and gullible.

In general longy is nigerian  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

innocentbystander. wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2015 at 10:01pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 6:28pm: Hard to imagine how anyone could think that 135 years is a significant period of time, when dealing with this subject. If they weren't so serious, it'd almost be funny. Even more so when you consider that the temperature change that has caused this mass hysteria is still well within natural variation.  ;D

innocent is also nigerian  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 24^th, 2015 at 1:08am:

Marla wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 4:23pm: To even suggest the sun alone controls climate is flat out ignorance; the causes of climate change (which is real by the way) are far more complex. Percentage means nothing. As for NOAA, take them with a grain of salt as they constantly update their data with grant money. Marla, I think you'll find that 'percentage' means a great deal in things like climate change and other situations,when the base argument is what percentage of the change is natural and what percentage is man made.. If human action is only responsible for 10% of the temperature increase, then stopping all fossil fuel use and human Co2 production would only slow or reduce the upper limit by 10%. So, instead of a 2 C increase by 2100 (or whenever it is) there'd only be a 1.9 C increase.

Quantitative argument is good  ::) ::)

If there was no sun there would be no climate change here on Earth we would just all freeze, funny how we're just the right distance from the sun to be the way we are.

The sun controls EVERYTHING that has to do with climate change here on Earth. No Sun No Earth as we know it.

Manmade CO2 is so small I don't even think it makes a difference.

Think about it when the sun gets hotter more CO2 is released into the atmosphere by the ecosystems.

At the moment we have a total of 0.04% CO2 in our atmosphere.

From that 0.04% CO2, 96% is natural from the ecosystems and 4% is from man mechanical injecting... 8-) CO2 into the atmosphere.

Ocean temperatures have been warm enough that we could potentially be seeing a cyclone form during the Winter, possibly for the first time since records began.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 4:47pm:

Marla wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 4:23pm: To even suggest the sun alone controls climate is flat out ignorance; the causes of climate change (which is real by the way) are far more complex. Percentage means nothing. As for NOAA, take them with a grain of salt as they constantly update their data with grant money. NOAA are rapidly becoming a joke.  The 're did' the ocean level data and now amazingly. it is in 100% agreement with IPCC predictions.  Now they are doing the same with surface temperature data and guess what?  the pause in warming... NO LONGER EXISTS.  mind you, this is in keeping with the climate hysterics who claim that the Medieval Warm Period and the little ice age - all well documented - did not in fact happen. NOAA and NASA have degenerated into the worst examples of climate science fraud around.  Forget Climategate, the real scoundrels are NASA.  IN early 2008 they declared that 2007 showed substantial COOLING.  A few months later, 2007 magically became a HOT year and no record exists on their website of the previous announcment which was heralded around the world.  these two bodies have become a disgrace.

Are you ever going to explain why you feel the need to tell deliberate lies?  You have been caught doing it on many occasions:
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1434949445

You told us that "even UK MET and NASA accept the 17year pause" (in global warming)."
Please show us some evidence please.


You told us:
everyone els in the world accepts (reluctantly or otherwise) that there has been a pause in global warming,
Please show us some evidence of any significant scientific body accepting that there has been a pause in global warming.

Why do you run away every time you are asked to provide evidence for your statements?

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 5:24pm:

Marla wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 4:56pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 4:47pm: NOAA are rapidly becoming a joke.  The 're did' the ocean level data and now amazingly. it is in 100% agreement with IPCC predictions.  Now they are doing the same with surface temperature data and guess what?  the pause in warming... NO LONGER EXISTS.  mind you, this is in keeping with the climate hysterics who claim that the Medieval Warm Period and the little ice age - all well documented - did not in fact happen. NOAA and NASA have degenerated into the worst examples of climate science fraud around.  Forget Climategate, the real scoundrels are NASA.  IN early 2008 they declared that 2007 showed substantial COOLING.  A few months later, 2007 magically became a HOT year and no record exists on their website of the previous announcment which was heralded around the world.  these two bodies have become a disgrace. I'm no fan of NOAA. All the speculation that surrounds them they will report anything on climate for grant money is mostly likely true. They either underestimate or dramatize the weather. However, you can't lie on temperature recorded data itself. Arizona, for example, is currently experiencing one of it hottest summers with temperatures the highest they have ever been since recording temperature data. The planet is getting hotter. no... ARIZONA is getting hotter.

The planet is getting hotter.

This is why sea levels are rising.
This is why the cryosphere is decreasing.
THis is why 2014 was the hottest year ever recorded.

To continually deny this is just silly.



longweekend58 wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 5:24pm:

and the key word you didnt understand was 'ONE' of its hottest summers meaning it has been hotter in the past.  And the rest of the USA and Europe is cooler.

Yes - but overall the planet is warming.

This is why sea levels are rising.
This is why the cryosphere is decreasing.
THis is why 2014 was the hottest year ever recorded.

To continually deny this is just silly.


longweekend58 wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 5:24pm:

BTW, the notion that you cant lie on temperature recorded data is cute, if astonishingly naive.  Perhaps you should read up on ClimateGate.

We have.  It is a nonsense that excites ignorant conspiracy theorists.

sea levels are rising.
the cryosphere is decreasing.
2014 was the hottest year ever recorded.

To continually deny this is just silly.


longweekend58 wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 5:24pm:

Or perhaps read how NOAA is now 'correcting' historical temperature data and perhaps you will be one of the few that thinks 'correcting' doesnt mean 'manipulating'.

More nonsense that excites ignorant conspiracy theorists.

sea levels are rising.
the cryosphere is decreasing.
2014 was the hottest year ever recorded.

To continually deny this is just silly.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 6:37pm:

IN general, people are stupid and gullible.

Yes. IN general, people are stupid and gullible.
But IN general, not all people are liars.

It seems you are though.

You told us that "even UK MET and NASA accept the 17year pause" (in global warming)."
Please show us some evidence please.


You told us:
everyone els in the world accepts (reluctantly or otherwise) that there has been a pause in global warming,
Please show us some evidence of any significant scientific body accepting that there has been a pause in global warming.

Why do you run away every time you are asked to provide evidence for your statements?

Ajax wrote on Jun 27^th, 2015 at 12:26pm:

If there was no sun there would be no climate change here on Earth we would just all freeze, funny how we're just the right distance from the sun to be the way we are.

Yes.  100% correct.


Ajax wrote on Jun 27^th, 2015 at 12:26pm:

The sun controls EVERYTHING that has to do with climate change here on Earth. No Sun No Earth as we know it.

Yes - more or less correct.  Though other drivers such as atmospheric content, orbital variations, tectonic shifts, volcanic activity also have some impact.


Ajax wrote on Jun 27^th, 2015 at 12:26pm:

Manmade CO2 is so small I don't even think it makes a difference.

Incorrect. Manmade CO2 (and other anthropogenic greenhouse gasses) have had a significant impact on the climate that human civilisations have developed in.  THis impact is measurable and unambiguous.


Ajax wrote on Jun 27^th, 2015 at 12:26pm:

Think about it when the sun gets hotter more CO2 is released into the atmosphere by the ecosystems.

Yes.  Correct (generally)


Ajax wrote on Jun 27^th, 2015 at 12:26pm:

At the moment we have a total of 0.04% CO2 in our atmosphere.

Yes.  Correct (generally)


Ajax wrote on Jun 27^th, 2015 at 12:26pm:

From that 0.04% CO2, 96% is natural from the ecosystems and 4% is from man mechanical injecting... 8-) CO2 into the atmosphere.

Yes.  Correct (generally)

What is your point?

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jun 30^th, 2015 at 12:52am:

What is your point?

Bat Boy never has a point. He just wants to copy and paste and quote others scientific data and research no matter how rounded or Koch Brothers mumbo jumbo influenced to show all us liberals about this alleged "global warming scam" also purported by liberals - according to Bat Boy himself.

He'll use big, scary words, too like "anthropogenic" and paste incomprehensible "facts" and if you so much as to dare to point out his ridiculousness he'll sulk like a child and call you "Miss Muffet."

Let him live in his deluded bubble no matter how hot it gets for him.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 30^th, 2015 at 12:15am:

Ocean temperatures have been warm enough that we could potentially be seeing a cyclone form during the Winter, possibly for the first time since records began.

From Accuweather

"The Weather Service is now predicting a Boise high of 104 for Saturday, 107 for Sunday and Monday, 106 for Tuesday and 103 for Wednesday.

That’s as far out on the limb as the Weather Service goes.

But AccuWeather, the Weather Channel and Weather Underground all see temps of 100 or higher starting Friday, June 26; the Weather Channel sees 100-degree days lasting until at least through July 8. Accuweather predicts 102 on July 9.

That would be a 14-day stretch of 100-degree days. The record is nine consecutive days, set in 2003 and 2006."

The point being that many towns in Idaho have never seen 100+ degree temperatures in June before. So who cares, right? According to Ajax and his whacky anti-"climategate" whatever buddies it's ONLY ARIZONA that's getting hotter.

You can't reason with these Koch-heads.

Marla wrote on Jun 30^th, 2015 at 6:26am:

"The Weather Service is now predicting a Boise high of 104 for Saturday, 107 for Sunday and Monday, 106 for Tuesday and 103 for Wednesday. That’s as far out on the limb as the Weather Service goes.

Wow, weather is now climate. And regionally too. What happened to "global"?

'June      54°      80°      31° (1995)      109° (1940)      0.74"      0"'

http://www.intellicast.com/Local/History.aspx?location=USID0025

(Boise)

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jun 30^th, 2015 at 12:52am:

Ajax wrote on Jun 27th, 2015 at 12:26pm: If there was no sun there would be no climate change here on Earth we would just all freeze, funny how we're just the right distance from the sun to be the way we are. Yes.  100% correct. Ajax wrote on Jun 27th, 2015 at 12:26pm: The sun controls EVERYTHING that has to do with climate change here on Earth. No Sun No Earth as we know it. Yes - more or less correct.  Though other drivers such as atmospheric content, orbital variations, tectonic shifts, volcanic activity also have some impact. Ajax wrote on Jun 27th, 2015 at 12:26pm: Manmade CO2 is so small I don't even think it makes a difference. Incorrect. Manmade CO2 (and other anthropogenic greenhouse gasses) have had a significant impact on the climate that human civilisations have developed in.  THis impact is measurable and unambiguous. Ajax wrote on Jun 27th, 2015 at 12:26pm: Think about it when the sun gets hotter more CO2 is released into the atmosphere by the ecosystems. Yes.  Correct (generally) Ajax wrote on Jun 27th, 2015 at 12:26pm: At the moment we have a total of 0.04% CO2 in our atmosphere. Yes.  Correct (generally) Ajax wrote on Jun 27th, 2015 at 12:26pm: From that 0.04% CO2, 96% is natural from the ecosystems and 4% is from man mechanical injecting... 8-) CO2 into the atmosphere. Yes.  Correct (generally) What is your point?

Did I pass sir....LMFAO...I didn't know I was going to be corrected.

There are many reasons that I have posted as to why manmade CO2 in the whole scheme of things ie climate change is negligible.

What was the reason for all the above.

I think it was Miss Muffet (I could be wrong) that said the sun doesn't control temperature here on Earth or only plays a minor part.

I reiterate for you Miss Muffet, if there was no sun there would be no climate change here on Earth.

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jun 30^th, 2015 at 12:46am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2015 at 6:37pm: IN general, people are stupid and gullible. Yes. IN general, people are stupid and gullible. But IN general, not all people are liars. It seems you are though. You told us that "even UK MET and NASA accept the 17year pause" (in global warming)." Please show us some evidence please. You told us: everyone els in the world accepts (reluctantly or otherwise) that there has been a pause in global warming, Please show us some evidence of any significant scientific body accepting that there has been a pause in global warming. Why do you run away every time you are asked to provide evidence for your statements?

been there done that b4 with you, rabbit-droppings.  showed you the links and the articles and then you run away and come back a few days later claiming I didnt and that the linsk dont exist blah blah blah.

even NOAA says the pause existed or did you not see there temperature record revamp where they are 'seeking to eliminate the pause'?

idiot.

Marla wrote on Jun 30^th, 2015 at 6:26am:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 30th, 2015 at 12:15am: Ocean temperatures have been warm enough that we could potentially be seeing a cyclone form during the Winter, possibly for the first time since records began. From Accuweather [i]"The Weather Service is now predicting a Boise high of 104 for Saturday, 107 for Sunday and Monday, 106 for Tuesday and 103 for Wednesday.

Weather with temperatures that high in the northern hemisphere would not affect ocean temperatures in the southern hemisphere. Or atleast not see temperatures warming for our area.

I have not seen much of winter this year. It feels like Autumn or Spring, with warmer than usual temperatures. Oh well, I guess there is next winter. I was kind of accustomed to the summer temperatures, anyway.

Marla wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 4:23pm:

To even suggest the sun alone controls climate is flat out ignorance; the causes of climate change (which is real by the way) are far more complex. Percentage means nothing. As for NOAA, take them with a grain of salt as they constantly update their data with grant money.

How much grant money does the fossil fuel industry receive to the nearest Billion?

Ajax wrote on Jun 30^th, 2015 at 5:36pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jun 30th, 2015 at 12:52am: Ajax wrote on Jun 27th, 2015 at 12:26pm: If there was no sun there would be no climate change here on Earth we would just all freeze, funny how we're just the right distance from the sun to be the way we are. Yes.  100% correct. Ajax wrote on Jun 27th, 2015 at 12:26pm: The sun controls EVERYTHING that has to do with climate change here on Earth. No Sun No Earth as we know it. Yes - more or less correct.  Though other drivers such as atmospheric content, orbital variations, tectonic shifts, volcanic activity also have some impact. Ajax wrote on Jun 27th, 2015 at 12:26pm: Manmade CO2 is so small I don't even think it makes a difference. Incorrect. Manmade CO2 (and other anthropogenic greenhouse gasses) have had a significant impact on the climate that human civilisations have developed in.  THis impact is measurable and unambiguous. Ajax wrote on Jun 27th, 2015 at 12:26pm: Think about it when the sun gets hotter more CO2 is released into the atmosphere by the ecosystems. Yes.  Correct (generally) Ajax wrote on Jun 27th, 2015 at 12:26pm: At the moment we have a total of 0.04% CO2 in our atmosphere. Yes.  Correct (generally) Ajax wrote on Jun 27th, 2015 at 12:26pm: From that 0.04% CO2, 96% is natural from the ecosystems and 4% is from man mechanical injecting... 8-) CO2 into the atmosphere. Yes.  Correct (generally) What is your point? Did I pass sir....LMFAO...I didn't know I was going to be corrected. There are many reasons that I have posted as to why manmade CO2 in the whole scheme of things ie climate change is negligible. What was the reason for all the above. I think it was Miss Muffet (I could be wrong) that said the sun doesn't control temperature here on Earth or only plays a minor part. I reiterate for you Miss Muffet, if there was no sun there would be no climate change here on Earth.

My mum is a teacher and my dad rubs shoulders with ministers but ajax: wow, i have never come across a **** as dismissive as your obviously brilliant shiny punani!

You, like, must know stuff and that  :D :D :D :D :D :D (You must also have kids that gave up talking to you a long long long long time ago as the private boarding schooling experiences demanded of you complete drunkeness after work every day  ::) ::))

Cheer-up buddy: heaps of ten grand guitars on e-bay for you to get bored with  :) :) :)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 6:28pm:

My mum is a teacher and my dad rubs shoulders with ministers but ajax: wow, i have never come across a **** as dismissive as your obviously brilliant shiny punani! You, like, must know stuff and that  :D :D :D :D :D :D (You must also have kids that gave up talking to you a long long long long time ago as the private boarding schooling experiences demanded of you complete drunkeness after work every day  ::) ::)) Cheer-up buddy: heaps of ten grand guitars on e-bay for you to get bored with  :) :) :)

You're a dopy front bottom even at the best of times.... :'(

Ajax wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 11:19am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 6:28pm: My mum is a teacher and my dad rubs shoulders with ministers but ajax: wow, i have never come across a **** as dismissive as your obviously brilliant shiny punani! You, like, must know stuff and that  :D :D :D :D :D :D (You must also have kids that gave up talking to you a long long long long time ago as the private boarding schooling experiences demanded of you complete drunkeness after work every day  ::) ::)) Cheer-up buddy: heaps of ten grand guitars on e-bay for you to get bored with  :) :) :) You're a dopy nice person even at the best of times.... :'(

! we all hope your kids learn to stay away from papa crazy  :D :D :D :D but we are rest-assured of that aint we darling  :-* :-*

How is the boring crack these days??

;D ;D

Hey, how 'bout them dried up jokes that used to call 'em selves whores??

:'(

Have your grandkids got attitudes yet? Are they hoping you're going to die before they have to come see you yet??

Ajax wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 11:19am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 6:28pm: My mum is a teacher and my dad rubs shoulders with ministers but ajax: wow, i have never come across a **** as dismissive as your obviously brilliant shiny punani! You, like, must know stuff and that  :D :D :D :D :D :D (You must also have kids that gave up talking to you a long long long long time ago as the private boarding schooling experiences demanded of you complete drunkeness after work every day  ::) ::)) Cheer-up buddy: heaps of ten grand guitars on e-bay for you to get bored with  :) :) :) You're a dopy nice person even at the best of times.... :'(

I blame global warming, it seems to have sent some people completely around the twist.  :(

innocentbystander. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2015 at 11:19am:

Ajax wrote on Jul 5th, 2015 at 11:19am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 6:28pm: My mum is a teacher and my dad rubs shoulders with ministers but ajax: wow, i have never come across a **** as dismissive as your obviously brilliant shiny punani! You, like, must know stuff and that  :D :D :D :D :D :D (You must also have kids that gave up talking to you a long long long long time ago as the private boarding schooling experiences demanded of you complete drunkeness after work every day  ::) ::)) Cheer-up buddy: heaps of ten grand guitars on e-bay for you to get bored with  :) :) :) You're a dopy nice person even at the best of times.... :'( I blame global warming, it seems to have sent some people completely around the twist.  :(

...says the bloke who voted for copper internet because his kids obviously needed to eat some more of his cum!