it is the underlying trend which is producing these record numbers," GISS Director Gavin Schmidt said.[

Hmm... wonder why the "underlying trend" took a vacation from the Atlantic and Antarctic.

*sigh*

AuntieG said:

it is the underlying trend which is producing these record numbers," GISS Director Gavin Schmidt said.[

Hmm... wonder why the "underlying trend" took a vacation from the Atlantic and Antarctic.

Auntie, are you saying you still don't understand the difference between the Arctic and Antarctic? I'm sure a lot of folks on here will be glad to help you out (again) or you could just look it up.

Sorry, I forgot who I was talking to. You probably can't look it up.

All these years and the words "global" and "average" are still eluding some people

http://www.nasa.g...ars-luck

NASA "science".
When no hurricanes hit you, it's LUCK. However, when they do it's GloBull warming from manmade CO2.

Can someone comment of how WWII (temporarily) raise the Earth's global mean temperature? By almost 0.5^o C!

Come back globulls warming....come backkkk...
http://www.abc.ne.../7623586

Why do so many arseholes post here? Is it the glitz? The glamour? The free Cheetos?

Can someone comment of how WWII (temporarily) raise the Earth's global mean temperature? By almost 0.5^o C!

A combination of a +ve PDO/ENSO and AMO.

https://upload.wi....svg.png
http://weatheradv...2015.png

Can someone comment of how WWII (temporarily) raise the Earth's global mean temperature? By almost 0.5^o C!

Well, hard to comment on something that does not appear to have happened. If anything, there was slight cooling from roughly 1940 - 1975 as a result of high pollution levels http://earthobser...e4.php). According to this graph:(https://alumni.st...aph.gif) temperatures rose steadily from 1880 to about 1940, when they suddenly fell. This was a result of a combination of natural variability (you see that elsewhere in the same graph) and, more importantly, human pollution, especially aerosols (See here: https://www.skept...ced.htm)

So, are there any other misunderstandings you would like to explore?

@Maggnus
Your links are broken; you pasted extraneous symbols. Here are the corrected links:
http://earthobser...ure4.php ,
https://alumni.st...raph.gif , https://www.skept...nced.htm

Can someone comment of how WWII (temporarily) raise the Earth's global mean temperature? By almost 0.5^o C!

Sure I can help you with that one. There was a run of hot years. But weather ain't climate. Weather is temporary it will change for the better if you wait long enough. But climate is here to stay and it will probably bring on more wars like the WWII.

Does that about answer your question? Good, now sit down and let the smart peoples have the floor, maybe they can teach us both something.

@Maggnus
Your links are broken; you pasted extraneous symbols. Here are the corrected links:
http://earthobser...ure4.php

Thanks Techno! Every time i try to edit :(

Why do so many arseholes post here? Is it the glitz? The glamour? The free Cheetos?

The lack of moderation and the feeling they're fighting the good fight against rationality, logic and science.

I believe in AGW but global warming is man made by lies not greenhouse gases.

What I like is the ability of global warmers to fit any data into their theory. So, global warmers, why is Antarctic ice coverage increasing? Warming sure is localized, which is why they call it "weather."|

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

What I like is the ability of global warmers to fit any data into their theory.

OK...lets turn this around then: What level of confidence/type of data would suffice to support AGW in your opinion?

If you say: 'none at all' then that's not scientific and you can be immediately dismissed as nutjobs.

So here's your (and every other deniers' ) chance to show that you are actually interested in science: Spell it out - in QUANTITATIVE terms (i.e. including threshold NUMBERS) - what would be a convincing level of confidence/data for you.

(And don't forget to compare that to other fields where you do believe convincing data is available - to make sure you're being consistent in your scientific outlook on life)

What I like is the ability of global warmers to fit any data into their theory. So, global warmers, why is Antarctic ice coverage increasing? Warming sure is localized, which is why they call it "weather."|

Amusingly you have found one of their "best" cases of fitting the data into their dogma; the Antarctic. Their go to spot for their global warming is the West Antarctic, directly above known intense geothermal activity.

Articles like this leave the impression with the reader that NASA scientists and engineers all share the same opinion on this matter. They don't.

I would be interested in your support for this statement. I not only think you are wrong, I think you are stating a deliberately vague falsehood.

Sure..it was also the 2nd biggest El Nino on record.

...oh, and it completely dissipated in the month of June. We now are in ENSO neutral conditions.

Call me when crocodiles are living in the Arctic like they did in the past.

Look at that trendline! It's almost vertical in recent years! It will be a matter of a decade before the oceans become pure carbonic acid and boil! Hey wait... why is the baseline 1880 to 1899? Seems rather arbitrary to me. Oh I see, temperature records indicate a solid cooling trend during that period. "Science" needs to stop shooting itself in the foot with mistakes or intentional biases like this. Most people wouldn't notice this of course but some do and it hurts their reputation.

Look at that trendline! It's almost vertical in recent years! It will be a matter of a decade before the oceans become pure carbonic acid and boil! Hey wait... why is the baseline 1880 to 1899? Seems rather arbitrary to me. Oh I see, temperature records indicate a solid cooling trend during that period. "Science" needs to stop shooting itself in the foot with mistakes or intentional biases like this. Most people wouldn't notice this of course but some do and it hurts their reputation.

Seriously, WTF are you talking about? Your simplistic views of the issues are displayed as usual, but this is laughably ametuer, even for you, Are you truly so dense that you think that the issue is carbonic acid? Do you even know what that is?

Your desperation becomes more and more evident with every post you make,

This gives a 2-month temperature fall of -0.37 deg. C, which is the second largest in the 37+ year satellite record…the largest was -0.43 deg. C in Feb. 1988.

http://www.drroys...4-deg-c/
Goodbye El Nino, I wonder what the ignorant Chicken Little Cult would claim as sign of their doom and gloom now.

jeff

why is the baseline 1880 to 1899?

makes sense to me - the record begins in 1880 - so take the first 10 years as a base line. How do you think the graph would be different if they had selected a different time period for the base line. What would be your reasoning for picking a different time period?

Ten years is nothing in the grand scheme. I'm simply pointing out the limitations of our data and "understanding" of temperature trends. I've seen anti sites using high anomaly time periods for their baseline and of course they get called out for manipulating the data to minimize the current trend. I'm simply doing the same in the other direction. Principle, not defense of narratives should be the goal here.

Look at that trendline! It's almost vertical in recent years! It will be a matter of a decade before the oceans become pure carbonic acid and boil! Hey wait... why is the baseline 1880 to 1899? Seems rather arbitrary to me. Oh I see, temperature records indicate a solid cooling trend during that period. "Science" needs to stop shooting itself in the foot with mistakes or intentional biases like this. Most people wouldn't notice this of course but some do and it hurts their reputation.

The silly remarks you make only hurt your own reputation.
Hey wait... your reputation is already at rock bottom.
I take that back, then.

If you think I take the "reputation" granted me by the obviously one-sided view points of users here with more than a grain of salt, you're going to be sorely disappointed. It's meaningless to me and to anyone who wants to do more than pander to a particular crowd.

Firstly, modern temperature records start in 1880 but that is not our baseline for measuring anthropocentric temperature increases. Because of the quality of records and because we measure climatic change over a 30 year period our baselines are global averages between 1951–1980. We then compare thirty year rolling averages with the baseline three-decade period.

And once again we make our main point - you guys don't actually know the science you keep saying is wrong.

So yes, this year is the warmest since temperature records began in 1880. And, as you can see, there is a steady increase in average global temperatures observed since that time. But that does NOT make 1880 our baseline year for analysing climatic change. Which you would know if you actually knew the science.

So yes, this year is the warmest since temperature records began in 1880.

I'm fine with that.... and based on such a limited amount of data what can we infer regarding trends except that presently the planet is warming? Many suggest the current trend is highly anomalous however our resolution prior to temperature records is low and uncertainty high. Excluding the most recent couple of years of estimated anomaly, the trend simply isn't alarming. And I thought the important factor now was total heat, after the hunt for missing heat began during the pause (that some studies suggest never happened now)? You throw temperature estimations out there as if such a basic form of measurement cannot be questioned but obviously we are having a hard time deciding the right way to produce global average temperatures.

In regards to the rest of your comment however, the graph above stated that the baseline used was from 1880-1899, not 1950-1980.

And now you're demonstrating you've never bothered to learn about how we reconstruct past temperature records.

Records only catalogue 0.000000025 of biosphere history, so of course any trend will set continuous records in such a small sample

Those who claim to be rational cannot explain why planets in solar system all heating up concurrently

What?

Look at that trendline! It's almost vertical in recent years! It will be a matter of a decade before the oceans become pure carbonic acid and boil! Hey wait... why is the baseline 1880 to 1899? Seems rather arbitrary to me. Oh I see, temperature records indicate a solid cooling trend during that period.

The position of the baseline has no effect on the trend. If you make the base period 2000 to 2009 it will make no difference to the rate of change of temperature over time. It has warmed about 1c since the 1880's regardless of where the baseline is.

"Science" needs to stop shooting itself in the foot with mistakes or intentional biases like this.

There is no mistake or intentional bias here, do you understand this now?

Records only catalogue 0.000000025 of biosphere history, so of course any trend will set continuous records in such a small sample

Those who claim to be rational cannot explain why planets in solar system all heating up concurrently

Because, they are not.

And now you're demonstrating you've never bothered to learn about how we reconstruct past temperature records.

LOL.
Can you say Mann made globull warming? You should go teach him.
http://hockeyscht...and.html

I'm a physicist

- Phys1

Let's check out the physics from the physicist on this thread in order of posts:

Yeah hmmm I wonder hmmm quite hmmm

yup

bschott trying to be funny.
bschott, you are not funny. you are sick.

I am completely serious....you are a fraud and a liar. My first post displays the extent of your physics abilities. (because there is no physics in any one of your posts ya see....just juvenile, troll like behaviour towards other posters.)

hypocrite [hip-uh-krit] noun 1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

j 130 years of temp records - plus the proxy data scientists have developed - gives the scientists a great deal of information

We're going to have to agree to disagree on that one. It gives us information about the patterns/trends observed within that 130 years, which as I said is nothing in the grand scheme. And you have to consider that early records were not subject to the same requirements as present ones. Proxy data is good at giving a general picture but resolution is often lost. We have a handful of geographical locations where resolution is high... so how much should we infer about global patterns based on that limited data? A lot of the panic around AGW hinges on the "unprecedented" nature of current warming. I argue we simply don't have enough real data to make that sort of statement.

Other subjects we can choose to "agree to disagree" on include gravity and the existence of trees.

So you are not disagreeing with me - you are disagreeing with facts. That seems par for the course with you.

No, we're disagreeing in regards to the overall value of proxy data, how much that data can be used to determine the unprecedented nature of the warming, and the "danger" to us and life on this planet if it does indeed continue to warm (which we don't know for a fact). Anyone that studies past climates (geologists and archaeologists for example) understand that the greatest threat to life here is a COLD planet. Many studies suggest past natural variations and abrupt climate changes have happened... and somehow the planet and life on it is still here. This is not an argument to proceed with unabated alteration of the planet... but it IS a reality check for those who tend to panic over every new model forecast.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on that one. It gives us information about the patterns/trends observed within that 130 years, which as I said is nothing in the grand scheme. And you have to consider that early records were not subject to the same requirements as present ones. Proxy data is good at giving a general picture but resolution is often lost. We have a handful of geographical locations where resolution is high... so how much should we infer about global patterns based on that limited data? A lot of the panic around AGW hinges on the "unprecedented" nature of current warming. I argue we simply don't have enough real data to make that sort of statement.

A well worded rebuttal. Your point is really not valid, and I argue that fine point detail (daily temps to weekly) is not required. We have strong and accurate proxies that give us a good understanding of past climate back to at least 10,000 years ago and a reasonable record going back much further.

When looked at, it is clear that the warming and CO2 levels of today ARE unprecedented, for as far back as a few million years Our species, as recognizable homo sapien, has only been around for about 200,000, and even the earliest recognizable hominid is only about 3.5 million years old. The proxy data clearly shows that there has never been an episode of warming like we are experiencing now in that entire period. For Homo Sapien, that makes this type of warming unprecedented.

As a species, we have already survived multiple episodes of extreme cold. We evolved to survive in extreme cold. We have never had to deal with extreme heat, and we do not do very well in it. Have you ever seen a person who suffers heat stroke? A person who suffers from extreme cold can recover very quickly - a person who suffers heat stroke takes months - if they even come out of it!

And heating is what we are going to see IF we do not stop adding GHG's, That's the whole point.

You seem to constantly miss the point being made. It is not about opionion - it is about science.

For the sake of humor, I'll boil down how I think you expect this argument to go.... You say "Science!" and I'm supposed to say "Oh yeah, you're right". Evoking the word "science" doesn't suddenly grant you a bullet-proof argument. Its conclusions are far from complete, especially in the realm of climate science/models.

We are developing ways of doing this in a win/win/win manner (clean/cheap/abundant renewable energy).

All for it.

Prediction is difficult, especially prediction of the future.
The only way to be 100% sure is hindsight vision.

LMAO.
Lost some coffee on that one.
"Hindsight vision", "Prediction of the past is easier".

People, I present you..... Chicken Little retard of the month.

Btw you changed my line and still put quotes around it.
That is fraud,.....heee...hawww

LMAO.
Chicken Little retard of the month, is going for the bonus prize.
Now if the retard had a brain, it would see that at the top of my post I quoted it ad verbum. Then again, because of its condition, it would imagine that someone must put words in its mouth to make it look like the retard, it actually is.

Astonishing!!
Chicken Little has no problem being the "Retard of the month", but is angry I paraphrased it.

Globalists in this thread have proven their ignorance of basic science. Several seem to be posing from Israel in furtherance of their zionist carbon tax enrichment scheme

I have shown them to be wrong so they only continue on with trolling tactics, which fits standard Israeli aggression temperament

Angry? I just conclude that it is fraud.

Uh huh. You also concluded that it's easier to predict the past.
So, you are happy being "Retard of the month".

Globalists in this thread have proven their ignorance of basic science. Several seem to be posing from Israel in furtherance of their zionist carbon tax enrichment scheme

I have shown them to be wrong so they only continue on with trolling tactics, which fits standard Israeli aggression temperament

This must be some sort of social experiment to see how long somebody can post such offensive crap before being rightfully banned.

Today was warmer than yesterday. You owe me some money Phys1

You may prefer to bat this around ad nauseum, but the real debate has been over for some time now. We need to continue to push solar arrays, wind farms and electric vehicles and more efficient electrical devices such as LED lights until we improve nuclear, get fusion working or come up with some better. It is clearly getting warmer so we need something that actually works, not more endless babble.

gkam, unfortunately for us all, you appear to be correct.

Let me add this to the pile of evidence . . . some of us a old enough and observant enough to notice the differences in our lifetimes from a personal perspective. Winters that just don't get as cold, changes in the patterns of rain to more intense and short-lived, the retreat of the end of sledding/skiing season, the increase in the number of punishingly hot days, etc. It may be anecdotal, but I am convinced from a personal perspective that it has warmed from my childhood when I grew up without air-conditioning. So for me, the debate is over. While it is comforting to be supported by mountains of science, I don't need it, I know it has warmed.

gkam, unfortunately for us all, you appear to be correct.

Well let's not get that carried away! :)

So for me, the debate is over. While it is comforting to be supported by mountains of science, I don't need it, I know it has warmed.

Well said. The science and the facts are the same, and they do not care who believes - they just are.

Lydia, push that duck off of you and stand up!

George kamburoff is so desperate for conversation he is talking to spam now.

Hey I heard you saw an sr71 crash while smoking pot on a hangar roof. Tell me all about it.

Maybe this is the sort of thing one sees when one rolls off a hangar roof and falls on his face while stoned, I dunno.

NASA "science".
When no hurricanes hit you, it's LUCK. However, when they do it's GloBull warming from manmade CO2.

That is just a straw man: nobody claims this and no scientists think this.

What I like is the ability of global warmers to fit any data into their theory. |

it isn't the global warmers that do this but the global warmer deniers.

What I like is the ability of global warmers to fit any data into their theory. So, global warmers, why is Antarctic ice coverage increasing?

So first you falsely accuse global warmers to fit any data into their theory and then you do exactly what you accuse THEM of doing by fitting Antarctic ice coverage data, which is by itself not a measure of GLOBAL warming as it is localized, to fit your theory that there is NO warming; ...err, that makes you both a hypocrite and a liar.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

some of us a old enough and observant enough to notice the differences in our lifetimes from a personal perspective. Winters that just don't get as cold, changes in the patterns of rain to more intense and short-lived, the retreat of the end of sledding/skiing season, the increase in the number of punishingly hot days, etc. It may be anecdotal, but I am convinced from a personal perspective that it has warmed from my childhood when I grew up without air-conditioning.

This isn't scientific in the least yet somehow "proponents" of science give it a 5-star rating. I grew up without A/C too. It doesn't mean it wasn't hot as hell when I was a kid. And we've seen below zero temps here in Virginia the last couple of winters. Does that mean it's getting colder? You can't "feel" climate change... you feel weather. "Climate change" as we know it is just an abstract number for which the methodology of attainment changes from year to year. It's back-casting and often revisionist.

"And we've seen below zero temps here in Virginia the last couple of winters."

I have never seen a bizarrely warm December and January here in Virginia like we had this past winter, and neither have you, or anyone else for that matter.

"Records smashed on East Coast's warmest ever Christmas Eve"

"Temperatures are expected to reach at least 70 degrees from Florida to New England, covering more than 1,200 miles. Amazingly, a reporting station in southern Quebec southwest of Montreal hit 70 degrees at 10 a.m. this morning. Bennington, Vt. hit 70 at 11 a.m."

"Burlington, Vt. and Norfolk, Va. soared to 68 and 82 degrees, respectively, by early in the afternoon, their warmest temperatures ever recorded during the month of December."

https://www.washi...mas-eve/

This isn't scientific in the least yet somehow "proponents" of science give it a 5-star rating

@jeffe
maybe because he has a history of being supportive of evidence over biased interpretations of science?

I up-rated it because of this part

It may be anecdotal, but I am convinced from a personal perspective

IOW- he noted that this is anecdote and it is his perspective

and this part

While it is comforting to be supported by mountains of science, I don't need it

he has noted that the mountains of evidence actually support his anecdote

now, you can argue against that anecdote all you want, but the fact remains:
the mountain of evidence really does support his conclusion

the real question is - why are you arguing against the evidence without equivalent evidence?
(as in: peer reviewed studies published in a reputable journal with an impact in the subject)

do you have an objective?

something to consider, anyway, eh?

@jeffe cont'd

And we've seen below zero temps here in Virginia the last couple of winters. Does that mean it's getting colder?

Francis et al
and i know i've posted it here at least 42 times
try reading it

You can't "feel" climate change... you feel weather

partially true
if you're old enough you can remember overall differences or distinctions between the weather and establish a pattern, etc...

"Climate change" as we know it is just an abstract number for which the methodology of attainment changes from year to year

and you can prove this with evidence?
by all means, show your proof of this

More to the point, if you show proof, demonstrate where it's false and not a better/more accurate reading

It's... revisionist

so, making adjustments due to degradation/etc of equipment is a bad idea?
exposure changes things... you can see this by leaving tires stacked in your yard to dry rot

not adjusting means false numbers, which you would then cry about

and you can prove this with evidence?
by all means, show your proof of this

Are you really suggesting you aren't familiar enough with the methodology that you have to ask for evidence? NASA's most recent "data" (in quotes because it's not actual data) adjustment is a good example. http://phys.org/n...asa.html

I have nothing against improving methodology... unfortunately most of the "improvements" we see are adjustments to actual observations to make them fit models better. Seems a little strange from where I'm standing.

Are you really suggesting you aren't familiar enough with the methodology that you have to ask for evidence?

@el-Jeffe
are you really suggesting "climate change" is defined as an arbitrary abstract number? it is well defined and it's data is also defined
http://www.nasa.g...-58.html

https://www3.epa....ary.html

is a good example

is it?
1- it's an article based on a study: http://www.nature...066.html

2- if you have evidence the study is wrong, you should publish it and get it peer reviewed, not whine and cry on a news aggregate site about it being conspiratorial

this is one problem i have with most of your posts
you claim to be versed in science/STEM yet you predominantly post opinion as though it were factual
http://www.auburn...ion.html

2Bcont'd

@jeffe cont'd

I have nothing against improving methodology... unfortunately most of the "improvements" we see are adjustments to actual observations to make them fit models better

here is the problem i see with that statement:
1- you don't mind improving methodology as long as it fits your biased interpretation of what it "should" be

2- your interpretation is based on an article, not the study: http://www.nature...066.html

3- if you have the ability to show the problem or prove the study is factually incorrect, or if you can refute the study, then why are you crying about it on a news aggregate site?
where is your own study refuting the data?

prove the problem or prove the study is wrong

you've historically attacked data like this (repeatedly) but you have no evidence to show for it proving you correct...

perhaps the problem isn't the science so much as it's your opinionated interpretations of it?

perhaps the problem isn't the science so much as it's your opinionated interpretations of it?

Like the "science" that produced 66 excuses for the global warming pause.
http://hockeyscht...-26.html
Now run along and find someone with a brain to read and explain the above to you so that you might acquire an educated opinion.

you don't mind improving methodology as long as it fits your biased interpretation of what it "should" be

It's pretty clear what I said and it wasn't that. There's a difference between correcting for known biases which was PART of what this study attempted and interpolating data with a particular outcome in mind.

"Because it isn't possible to add more measurements from the past, the researchers instead set up the climate models to mimic the limited coverage in the historical records."

Re:climate change. You pulled another straw man out of thin air but since you brought it up.... Everything in science needs units of measurement. Global average temperature anomaly and more importantly, model projections, happen to be the main pieces of information from which we are expected to glean historical comparisons and make policy decisions. Anomaly is leaned hard on because we can't accurately isolate the effects of higher temps from other manmade impacts or natural variability.

Sure..it was also the 2nd biggest El Nino on record.

...oh, and it completely dissipated in the month of June. We now are in ENSO neutral conditions.

Call me when crocodiles are living in the Arctic like they did in the past.

What a dumb phark....

... 66 excuses...

@antiG
only you would call the search for answers "excuses"
do you really wonder why you're ridiculed with nonsensical reasoning like that?

.

.

It's pretty clear what I said and it wasn't that

@jeffe
is it?

There's a difference between correcting for known biases which was PART of what this study attempted and interpolating data with a particular outcome in mind

and again: evidence is the key here

you're making a claim
said claim can be "interpreted" as conspiratorial as well as delusional considering you've not actually produced any evidence for it being anything other than a figment of your imagination

so i will ask again: where is the equivalent evidence (to said study you are arguing against) that substantiates your claim?

more to the point: where is any evidence at all other than your opinion?

2Bcont'd

@jeffe cont'd

You pulled another straw man out of thin air

actually, i was making a point about your own strawman
it was especially relevant considering your claims of education
was i being too subtle for you?

normally i am not subtle, but sometimes humour is a better teacher than evidence... i was hoping you would take the lesson to heart

i guess i overestimated your ability
apologies

we can't accurately isolate the effects of higher temps from other manmade impacts or natural variability

i disagree
i mean... the whole point of research is to determine what does what , where and how etc

more to the point:
what does that have to do with your "abstract number" argument or "the methodology of attainment changes from year to year" comment?

perhaps you can present a paper to explain what the methodology should be and get it published in Science Mag or something?

... 66 excuses...

@antiG
only you would call the search for answers "excuses"
do you really wonder why you're ridiculed with nonsensical reasoning like that?

LOL.
Oh, the consummate retard, can't even heed good advice. If it had found someone with a brain to read and explain the link, as I pleaded with it to do, then it might have known that the "66 excuses" is as stated in the linked page. Do you really wonder why you're NOT ridiculed with nonsensical reasoning like that? Well, it's because you are doing such a bang up job of ridiculing yourself with every post.

LMFAO

to read and explain the link

@antiG troll
1- i usually don't open links from you at all ! why would i? you don't ever link actual science or valid content!

2- your link has all the credibility of used toilet paper as it's not referencing a journal, study, or any actual validated peer reviewed science - it's opinion and likely coming from someone on a payroll to make idiots like you believe in their delusion

3- and more importantly: why would i open a potential phishing site when you obviously can't find actual scientific content to discuss because you've been conned into believing anything that is anti-AGW?

all you want is attention, but sometimes you post stuff that is so stupid it defies logic

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

i usually don't open links from you at all ! why would i?

LMAO.
Oh, the consummate retard, that's why I pleaded for you to find someone with a brain to read and explain those 66 pal reviewed papers to you.
Now run along.

Ob-comps are very sensitive

@ChiefFartingDog
not just OB-comp, but also narcissistic delusional tendencies with Dunning-Kruger, and a touch of Napoleon complex - although with the idiot antiG is more like "small dog syndrome"
http://www.bprcem...abstract

this is demonstrated by his abhorrent behaviour (overly-aggressive or domineering social behavior attempting to compensate for his short-comings -pun intended) when it comes to evidence refuting his/her ideas

notice that the refusal to read his pseudoscience link meant that everyone who didn't is "the consummate retard"?

This is more transference than anything but demonstrative of the small dog syndrome noted above

one now wonders:
is he/she actually physically diminutive or is this a manifestation of an epic failed life where the need to demonstrate said attributes is only manifesting on-line?

likely the idiot is the same in person... and really short

notice that the refusal to read his pseudoscience link meant that everyone who didn't is "the consummate retard"?

Poor retard, it cannot read, far less comprehend, thus everything that would break its faith in the AGW Cult, is pseudoscience. If it could only find someone with intelligence to help it, then it would see that the link leads to pal reviewed studies published in science journals.
http://www.colora...-says-cu

http://ca.wiley.c...825.html

"change of grades"?

Really? You'd do that to your own character for money?

BTW, George. Just saw an article about how CA power is changing their rate structure for home solar users.
They changed for the money.
Sucks to be you, eh?

But why would you get enjoyment from the desired distress of others? Widening Schadenfreude?

You know the answer to that one, don't you?

"what does the psychopath REALLY get from their victims? It's easy to see what they are after when they lie and manipulate for money or material goods or power. But in many instances, such as love relationships or faked friendships, it is not so easy to see what the psychopath is after. Without wandering too far afield into spiritual speculations - a problem Cleckley also faced - we can only say that it seems to be that the psychopath ENJOYS making others suffer."

Uh, . no, WG. I do not sell my power to the utility, and I am already on a time-of-use rate.

Then you have previously mis-described your participation in the program.

And we have powered the house, the car, and have over 100 kWh banked as credits. We will draw on them and probably have to start paying in deep winter. It is doing much better than they promised.

So they give you credits instead of cash? Even easier for them to take back in the future...

But why would you get enjoyment from the desired distress of others?

Not enjoying their stress. Just observing and being cynical.

Widening Schadenfreude?

I like the sound of it, but too ungainly to look at on the screen as well as the many opportunities for mis-spelling - You even misspelled "WHYdening" (by example).

http://www.colora...-says-cu

This is from the petulant child! I don't usually look at his rantings, as he usually says nothing worth reading, but this 3+ yr old study was a good one. First, it confirms that there was no pause (thanks againstseeing) and discusses one of the reasons the degree of warming was at the lower end of the predicted range of warming.

Nice job againstseeing!

"So they give you credits instead of cash? Even easier for them to take back in the future"
---------------------------

Hoping for it?

Nope - but not exactly counting it out...

I already explained to you folk the power we generate goes into the line and we get credit for the kWh exported to our neighbors instead of being generated hundreds of miles away and transmitted and distributed to here.

Not gonna take the time to look it up, but I don't remember it being explained that way.
One of us is sufferering from Mandela effect, it would appear. I think it's you, but would happy to shown otherwise.

Most of our usage is at night, so we are actually trading our high-value kWh for their lower-value kWh, but it is fine with us.

That's one of the things they changed on the guy mentioned in the article...

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

no suffering involved

Well not for you.

George kamburoff enjoys coming here and making people suffer by forcing them to spend time researching and discounting his bullshit.

Pastimes: making people jump through hoops, making up nonsense about his past, demonstrating his lying and cheating skills which he is so proud of.

Goobers were born to suffer right george?

Time for george to suffer.

"Has the person become agitated, aggressive, irritable, or temperamental?" the questionnaire asks. "Does she/he have unrealistic beliefs about her/his power, wealth or skills?"

"Or maybe another kind of personality change has happened: "Does she/he no longer care about anything?"

"If the answer is yes to one of these questions — or others on a new checklist — and the personality or behavior change has lasted for months, it could indicate a very early stage of dementia, according to a group of neuropsychiatrists and Alzheimer's experts.

"They are proposing the creation of a new diagnosis: mild behavioral impairment. The idea is to recognize and measure something that some experts say is often overlooked: Sharp changes in mood and behavior may precede the memory and thinking problems of dementia."