|
|
Post by Sailor on Nov 15, 2014 7:13:58 GMT -8
Up north, some areas are already seeing more than a full November's snowfall in a single day. Sault, MI Receives 1 Month’s Snow in 1 DayFor those who have been asking whether the unusually cold Great Lakes will reduce the amount of lake effect snow the region gets this winter, I think we just got the answer. Not when a massive cold wave hits the U.S. so early in the season. The current cold wave over the U.S. has dumped 2 to 4 feet of mostly lake-effect snow over scattered locations in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. My home town of Sault Ste. Marie is waking up to 2 feet of new snow this morning, most of which fell yesterday. This is more than the average snowfall for the whole month of November, which is only 16 inches. The Ishpeming, Mi area has up to 3 feet on the ground this morning. More here: www.drroyspencer.com/2014/11/sault-mi-receives-1-months-snow-in-1-day/I still have family living in Michigan, a niece lives in the Ishpeming MI area. Snow cover this year is already causing issues she says (gotta love Facebook.) NASA says the last year was one of the warmest on record. Empirical evidence from around the globe says that claim is B.S. We'll see. |
|
|
|
Post by Sailor on Nov 16, 2014 14:08:31 GMT -8
Ice Visible on Lake Superior Weeks Ahead of ScheduleCold temperatures and snow across the Great Lakes in November is certainly nothing out of the ordinary, but this morning, a layer of ice was visible on parts of Lake Superior in Ashland, Wis. While this may not seem unusual given the current stretch of unseasonably cold temperatures, it is actually several weeks earlier than normal. The first sightings of ice on Lake Superior and the Great Lakes overall usually occur during the beginning to middle of December. However, a perfect combination of last season's record ice coverage, cooler summer temperatures, and an early blast of arctic air this fall has allowed for areas of ice to form earlier than normal for the second year in a row. More: abcnews.go.com/US/ice-visible-lake-superior-weeks-ahead-schedule/story?id=26939239
|
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Nov 17, 2014 18:17:42 GMT -8
If you have to shovel it, is it still global warming?
|
|
|
|
Post by warrior1972 on Nov 18, 2014 5:14:12 GMT -8
(SIGH)
It's called GLOBAL Warming.
NOT " U.S. warming".
And nobody, repeat, NOBODY said that it wasn't going to get cold or snow in winter time any more, or even set record for cold or snow anymore.
It's about the CLIMATE of the WHOlE DAMNED WORRD, ALL OF IT, DURING THE LONG TERM.
And no major meteorological agency on this planet is denying it.
|
|
|
|
Post by youngstown on Nov 18, 2014 12:09:01 GMT -8
If you have to shovel it, is it still global warming? They got lots of global warming to shovel in Obamas house. Cept it smells like manure.  |
|
|
|
Post by warrior1972 on Nov 18, 2014 17:56:53 GMT -8
If you have to shovel it, is it still global warming? They got lots of global warming to shovel in Obamas house. Cept it smells like manure. Not even worthy of a reply, except to tell you so. The subject was global warming.
That concept was around LONG before "Barack Obama". Do some research. But be careful. You might accidentally learn something. |
|
|
|
Post by warrior1972 on Nov 19, 2014 5:38:22 GMT -8
That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.
Climate Myth... "There is no consensus" The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere ...". (Petition Project) Skeptical Science's 2013 'The Consensus Project' Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' and 'global warming' published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it. www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htmI can produce articles from the National Academy of Science, NASA, NOAA, and National Geographic, just to name a few.Let me know if you want to see them. Governments around the world agree, and have created policies to curb emissions as a result. Those policies have reuslted in actions resulting in billions of dollars invested.
|
|
|
|
Post by youngstown on Nov 19, 2014 9:32:07 GMT -8
The Great lakes were formed by Global warming after the last ice age...It just never stops!! lol Poor Warrior  another VICTIM of JUNK SCIENCE. |
|
|
|
Post by warrior1972 on Nov 19, 2014 16:32:53 GMT -8
The Great lakes were formed by Global warming after the last ice age...It just never stops!! lol Poor Warrior another VICTIM of JUNK SCIENCE.
No quote from an article, or link referring to it for reference.
No article of your own.
No research.Just a typical smartass remark. And FYI, the Great Lakes WERE formed by glaciers. Where's the quote from an article on this website saying Global Warming as we know it today was involved?
There isn't any, because there's NO SUCH STATEMENT MADE FROM AN ARTICLE ON THIS WEBSITE.
Why is that?
Because there weren't even any human beings around at the time the Great Lakes were formed, so PLEASE, show me where anything in any article on this website says that global warming caused by man-made emissions caused the Great Lakes to form.
Produce the quote, if it's from the an article on this website, and show where you got it from by copying and posting the paragraph and quoting which article on the website it came from with a link.
You completely IGNORE the specific quote I took from the article, make up some b.s. about the Great Lakes being formed by Global Warming, and talk about ME being a "victim of junk science"?
And YOU "LOL"?
REALLY?
 
Yeah, "it just never stops."
But I digress.
THE SUBJECT WAS GLOBAL WARMING.
NASA, NOAA, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, and the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES sure as hell aren't "junk science". Those are my sources for my argument on the ORIGINAL subject, GLOBAL WARMING. I'll be delighted to present them.
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/
environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/
nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/events/a-discussion-on-climate-change-evidence-and-causes/
climate.nasa.gov/
Are THOSE sources "junk science"?
Poor Youngstown.
Smartass remarks don't substitute for your total lack of knowledge of scientific fact.
LOL. |
|
|
|
Post by tankcommander on Nov 20, 2014 10:00:53 GMT -8
NASA says the last year was one of the warmest on record. Empirical evidence from around the globe says that claim is B.S. Maybe they should step away from their instruments, and stick their head out the window?  |
|
|
|
Post by Sailor on Nov 20, 2014 13:36:52 GMT -8
Works for me TC.
|
|
|
|
Post by warrior1972 on Nov 20, 2014 16:19:28 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by youngstown on Nov 20, 2014 20:31:38 GMT -8
Still Junk Science Warrior, national geographic ain't what it used to be since it sold out. |
|
|
|
Post by warrior1972 on Nov 20, 2014 21:22:28 GMT -8
Still Junk Science Warrior, national geographic ain't what it used to be since it sold out. "Sold out"? "National Geographic, formerly The National Geographic Magazine, is the official magazine of the National Geographic Society. It has been published continuously since its first issue in 1888, nine months after the Society itself was founded. It primarily contains articles about geography, history, and world culture. The magazine is known for its thick square-bound glossy format with a yellow rectangular border and its extensive use of dramatic photographs. The magazine is published monthly, and additional map supplements are also included with subscriptions. It is available in a traditional printed edition and through an interactive online edition. On occasion, special editions of the magazine are issued. As of 2014, the magazine was circulated worldwide in 40 local-language editions and had a global circulation of 6.8 million per month.[4] Its U.S. circulation is around 3.5 million per month.[5]" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Geographic_(magazine)So much the fuck for THAT. I've got FOUR completely independent sources here, Youngstown, ALL of which are reputable(And that DOESN'T change just because YOU said so), and all af which agree with me, and disagree with you. It will take more than yet another smartass remark from you to change it.
...And you STILL aren't producing a goddamned thing but SMARTASS REMARKS. Not a single quote, not one article, nothing to back up your statements but MORE smartass remarks and halfwit humor. you have not answered ONE question with a straight answer, and as far as I recall, YOU NEVER FUCKING HAVE.
You aren't fooling anybody but yourself, so don't waste any more of my precious time.
Good night. |
|
|
|
Post by youngstown on Nov 20, 2014 23:09:27 GMT -8
Still Junk Science Warrior, national geographic ain't what it used to be since it sold out. "Sold out"? "National Geographic, formerly The National Geographic Magazine, is the official magazine of the National Geographic Society. It has been published continuously since its first issue in 1888, nine months after the Society itself was founded. It primarily contains articles about geography, history, and world culture. The magazine is known for its thick square-bound glossy format with a yellow rectangular border and its extensive use of dramatic photographs. The magazine is published monthly, and additional map supplements are also included with subscriptions. It is available in a traditional printed edition and through an interactive online edition. On occasion, special editions of the magazine are issued. As of 2014, the magazine was circulated worldwide in 40 local-language editions and had a global circulation of 6.8 million per month.[4] Its U.S. circulation is around 3.5 million per month.[5]" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Geographic_(magazine)So much the fuck for THAT. I've got FOUR completely independent sources here, Youngstown, ALL of which are reputable(And that DOESN'T change just because YOU said so), and all af which agree with me, and disagree with you. It will take more than yet another smartass remark from you to change it.
...And you STILL aren't producing a goddamned thing but SMARTASS REMARKS. Not a single quote, not one article, nothing to back up your statements but MORE smartass remarks and halfwit humor. you have not answered ONE question with a straight answer, and as far as I recall, YOU NEVER FUCKING HAVE.
Whipping your ass is far too boring to be a full time job, you know? You aren't fooling anybody but yourself, so don't waste any more of my precious time.
Good night. You Democrats all have foul, dirty mouths. Now you're blending into the religious zealot global warming fool? Get a life, if Obama's pushin it....it's phoney. |
|
another VICTIM of JUNK SCIENCE.
