New Ice Age

On Sun, 31 May 2015 16:34:47 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

The "evidence" is they can't even predict climate/weather out accurately one WEEK with super computer modeling and anyone who believes in man-made global warming (after 18 natural global warming episodes over the last 500,000 years that they CAN'T explain) is a FOOL.

Predicting weather is a very different problem than predicting
climate. There are theoretical grounds to believe that in most cases
weather prediction will always break down for periods greater than a
couple of weeks, even with perfect models. That's because chaotic math
dominates. Not so with climate. Climate tends to follow predictable
trends for centuries to millennia. Our current models are doing a
pretty good job predicting the current climate, and there are still
quite a few uncertainties in the models being used.

On Monday, June 1, 2015 at 12:47:38 AM UTC+1, Sam Wormley wrote:


Look at the last 30 and 60 years.


Berkeley Earth Report 2014
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memo...Newsletter.pdf


It is easily one of the greatest global events as millions of square miles of sea ice forms and disappears depending on where the planet is positioned in its orbital circumference.

I would have thought that the strong hint involved in the formation and disappearance of frost daily as the planet turns away and towards the Sun would draw attention to the other surface rotation to the Sun which is felt dramatically at the polar regions are carried around in a circle to the Sun as a function of the orbital behavior of the Earth.

Some people need to stand back and consider the large scale creation of ice first and the dynamic behind it because everything else is meaningless until a thorough explanation is provided.

On Sun, 31 May 2015 18:32:05 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Sun, 31 May 2015 16:34:47 -0700 (PDT), RichA
Predicting weather is a very different problem than predicting
climate. There are theoretical grounds to believe that in most cases
weather prediction will always break down for periods greater than a
couple of weeks, even with perfect models. That's because chaotic math
dominates. Not so with climate. Climate tends to follow predictable
trends for centuries to millennia. Our current models are doing a
pretty good job predicting the current climate, and there are still
quite a few uncertainties in the models being used.

Says the guy who can't predict how corn will grow.



This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 4:01:52 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 12:27:20 PM UTC-7, Lord Vath wrote:

Evidence is walking in your back yard on May 31 when its 52 degrees
and you freeze your tootsies.

So much for your scientific literacy.

I can pretty much guarantee that you cannot freeze your tootsies at 52 degrees. Uncomfortable? Sure. Frozen? Naw...

You, palsing, are hereby FORBIDDEN from ever using hyperbole on this or any other forum.

On Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 3:22:23 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 31 May 2015 12:46:54 -0500, Sam Wormley
wrote:

On 5/31/15 9:54 AM, Lord Vath wrote:
The new ice age is upon us.

Look at the scientific evidence...

Science deniers are not influenced by evidence.

There are no deniers, only skeptics.

And it is quite clear that warmingistas such as yourself are not influenced by any evidence, inasmuch as you continue to have outsized CO2 footprints.

You are no different from litterbugs who complain about litter.

On Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 7:47:38 PM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 5/31/15 6:34 PM, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 31 May 2015 13:46:57 UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 5/31/15 9:54 AM, Lord Vath wrote:
The new ice age is upon us.

Look at the scientific evidence.

The "evidence" is they can't even predict climate/weather out accurately one WEEK with super computer modeling and anyone who believes in man-made global warming (after 18 natural global warming episodes over the last 500,000 years that they CAN'T explain) is a FOOL.


Look at the last 30 and 60 years.

Irrelevant. That is not nearly a long-enough time frame upon which to draw any reasonable, scientific or meaningful conclusions.

wrote:
On Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 3:22:23 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 31 May 2015 12:46:54 -0500, Sam Wormley
wrote:

On 5/31/15 9:54 AM, Lord Vath wrote:
The new ice age is upon us.

Look at the scientific evidence...

Science deniers are not influenced by evidence.

There are no deniers, only skeptics.


Come off it!

You're a gullible contra.

On Monday, June 1, 2015 at 11:24:26 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 3:22:23 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 31 May 2015 12:46:54 -0500, Sam Wormley
wrote:

On 5/31/15 9:54 AM, Lord Vath wrote:
The new ice age is upon us.

Look at the scientific evidence...

Science deniers are not influenced by evidence.

There are no deniers, only skeptics.


Come off it!

You're a gullible contra.

I see your hypocrisy, therefore I am not gullible.

On Mon, 1 Jun 2015 07:58:06 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Science deniers are not influenced by evidence.

There are no deniers, only skeptics.

You do not know what a skeptic is. A skeptic is not a doubter, not a
denier. A skeptic is a person who bases beliefs on evidence. A denier
is a person who chooses to not believe in something that is well
supported by evidence.

Global warming deniers are not skeptics. They are science deniers.
They have a recognized psychological pathology.

On Monday, June 1, 2015 at 12:16:28 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jun 2015 07:58:06 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Science deniers are not influenced by evidence.

There are no deniers, only skeptics.

You do not know what a skeptic is. A skeptic is not a doubter, not a
denier. A skeptic is a person who bases beliefs on evidence.

The evidence being that there ISN'T enough evidence, and as further evidence, that hypocrites have no credibility, other evidence notwithstanding.