Solar Activity Plays A Significant Role In Global Temps

[heckofajobbrownie]

So then just shut up. If your answer is to point out the obvious, and that you don't have any ideas, or agree with anyone else's, or even know what they are, then just shut up. Because then you're just grumbling, and from a place of total ignorance.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Also, I doubt you're familiar with the science, but the last few years of it has turned increasingly grim. Virtually all of the major studies have upped their estimates of temperature increase, and come to the realization that it's happening faster than we thought. You're talking about a likelihood that today's children are going to grow up in a world that's vastly different and less inhabitable than the one we have now.

 

Here's a good video for you to watch.

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

Then you can tell me what this is a graph of.

[calfoxwc]

Heckbunker is determined to make a liberal progressive cultist out of himself even still. So, heckbunker stupo, listen to Anthony Lupo.

 

Truth is, from a freakin expert:

*********************************

Global Warming Is Natural, Not Man-Made

 

by Anthony Lupo

 

(NAPSA)—One of the fundamental tenets of our justice system is one is innocent until

proven guilty. While that doesn’t apply to scientific discovery, in the global warming debate the prevailing

attitude is that human induced global warming is already a fact of life and it is

up to doubt e r s t o prove otherwise.

 

To complete the analogy, I’ll add that to date, there is no credible evidence to

demonstrate that the climatological changes we’ve seen since the mid-1800’s are outside the bounds

of natural variability inherent in the earth’s climate system.

 

Thus, any impartial jury should not come back with a “guilty” verdict convicting humanity

of forcing recent climatological changes. Even the most ardent supporters of global warming will not

argue this point. Instead, they argue that humans are only partially responsible for the observed

climate change. If one takes a hard look at the science involved, their assertions appear to be

groundless.

 

First, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant as many claim. Carbon dioxide is good for plant life and is

a natural constituent of the atmosphere. During Earth’s long history there has been more and

less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than we see today.

 

Second, they claim that climate

is stable and slow to change, and we are accelerating climate change beyond natural variability.

 

That is also not true.

 

Climate change is generally a regional phenomenon and not a global one. Regionally, climate has

been shown to change rapidly in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Life on earth will

adapt as it has always done. Life on earth has been shown to thrive when planetary temperatures are

warmer as opposed to colder.

 

Third, they point to recent model projections that have shown that the earth will warm

as much as 11 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. One should be careful when

looking at model projections. After all, these models are crude representations

of the real atmosphere and are lacking many fundamental processes and interactions

that are inherent in the real atmosphere. The 11 degrees scenario that is thrown around the

media as if it were the mainstream prediction is an extreme scenario.

 

Most models predict anywhere from a 2 to 6 degree increase over the next century, but even these

are problematic given the myriad of problems associated with using models and interpreting their

output.

 

No one advocates destruction of the environment, and indeed we have an obligation to take care

of our environment for future generations. At the same time, we need to make sound decisions

based on scientific facts.

 

My research leads me to believe that we will not be able to state conclusively that global

warming is or is not occurring for another 30 to 70 years. We simply don’t understand the climate system

well enough nor have the data to demonstrate that humanity is having a substantial impact

on climate change.

 

Anthony R. Lupo is assistant professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri at

Columbia and served as an expert reviewer for the UN’s Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change.

[FairHooker11]

Also, I doubt you're familiar with the science, but the last few years of it has turned increasingly grim. Virtually all of the major studies have upped their estimates of temperature increase, and come to the realization that it's happening faster than we thought. You're talking about a likelihood that today's children are going to grow up in a world that's vastly different and less inhabitable than the one we have now.

 

Here's a good video for you to watch.

 

 

 

lol a blogger!

 

 

I'll take your 2 degree increase and raise you 3 volcano eruptions due soon in Iceland....

 

should be a net temp loss ... -2 degrees?

[heckofajobbrownie]

Ladies and gentlemen, today's Republican Party.

 

I don't know if you guys noticed, but Karl Rove just designed a new group to cut you and your candidates off at the knees because he knows you're killing the party.

 

Anyway, Steve, do take a look. This guy is correctly summarizing the current science.

[Westside Steve]

Ladies and gentlemen, today's Republican Party.

 

I don't know if you guys noticed, but Karl Rove just designed a new group to cut you and your candidates off at the knees because he knows you're killing the party.

 

Anyway, Steve, do take a look. This guy is correctly summarizing the current science.

I have to wait until I get to my desktop. It's not available on mobile. WSS

[Westside Steve]

Alright I watched your video.

If it is the right 1 then most of the points I bring up are there.

Does that piss you off?

I assume you angry with me because I don't seem too share your sense dire emergency is that right?

He says that 2 degrees is a major milestone.

( But that has been amended to 1.5)

He also claims that if we stop everything Immediately That the gases already in the air will push over mark.

Second point is that it will take a concerted effort from the entire world.

I don't see that happening, do you?

He says the earthly emissions must be stopped and then even brought to make any difference.

Frankly I don't see happening either.

 

So whether or not I think the predictions are spot on I can't imagine How we will attain the goal of stopping the emissions.

 

He seems to think it will take drastic measures at some point.

 

Human nature does not lend itself to drastic measures for future problems.

Most economists believe that the national debt Is a crisis waiting to happen.

I don't suppose we will make a substantial changes until it crashes.

People often don't quit smoking until after the heart attack if then.

 

Again if these predictions are accurate you should worry more about getting a developing countries on board then calling me names.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

Also I think your cause would have been better served if the leaders of the movement could have restrained themselves years ago.

I know it upsets you if I mention Al Gore but he was really the spokesperson the celebrity endorser for the movement.

When many were making the end of the world predictions 2 or 3 decades ago and now things don't really seem different what do you expect?

It was pretty hard to take the day after tomorrow seriously.

 

You can only postpone end of the world predictions a few times before no 1 cares anymore.

 

WSS

[Westside Steve]

Another point, sorry.

Remember the Kyoto Accord?

It reminded me of revenue sharing in baseball.

Milwaukee and Cleveland love the idea, not so much the New York Yankees.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

Can you fill in this blank though Steve? It'll help me direct my future post. I want to know what you think the end result of what you are claiming is.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=Dqq_P39rNWQ&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DDqq_P39rNWQ

[calfoxwc]

actually, heckbunker - karl rove is a control freak. If it weren't for him and his cronies, the Rep party would be

 

a far more well adjusted bunch of folks to run for office.

 

Rove is just a hack for the old guard that isn't really conservative - they just want to play

 

to the masses.

 

We already have a marxist pig president who has done that, and nothing more.

 

McCain and Romney were just on the flip side of ignorant. Obamao and Biteme are on the other side - ON the ignorant side.

 

With you.

 

Because you are not all that smart.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Alright I watched your video.

If it is the right 1 then most of the points I bring up are there.

Does that piss you off?

I assume you angry with me because I don't seem too share your sense dire emergency is that right?

He says that 2 degrees is a major milestone.

( But that has been amended to 1.5)

He also claims that if we stop everything Immediately That the gases already in the air will push over mark.

Second point is that it will take a concerted effort from the entire world.

I don't see that happening, do you?

He says the earthly emissions must be stopped and then even brought to make any difference.

Frankly I don't see happening either.

 

So whether or not I think the predictions are spot on I can't imagine How we will attain the goal of stopping the emissions.

 

He seems to think it will take drastic measures at some point.

 

Human nature does not lend itself to drastic measures for future problems.

Most economists believe that the national debt Is a crisis waiting to happen.

I don't suppose we will make a substantial changes until it crashes.

People often don't quit smoking until after the heart attack if then.

 

Again if these predictions are accurate you should worry more about getting a developing countries on board then calling me names.

WSS

 

Uh, no. He's not saying what you're saying. You're saying "I can point to three obvious challenges and using those to argue for not doing anything." He's pointing to the science and saying despite the challenges we better get on board with doing something, and fast. He doesn't lay out what that something is, but you can probably guess.

 

And no, you can't do anything without the United States of America not only being involved, but leading the effort. You also seem to think that these efforts aren't already underway, and haven't been going on for years. They have been. Trust me, getting India and China on board is an ongoing process. And they look at it as getting the United States on board. And you know what their point is? That yes, we, China, are polluting a lot now, and will in the future, but guess whose emissions are currently up in the atmosphere causing the current warming over the past 50 years? Because it ain't China's. So pay up.

 

That's their case.

 

I don't know why you or anyone else is so wedded to the idea that you should be paying taxes on your income. That I don't get. After all, if you'd been paying carbon taxes for the last 30 years you'd be arguing to keep carbon taxes. You just don't want to bothered.

 

Now have you figured out what that graph is yet?

[heckofajobbrownie]

And do accept that this is a good approximation of the science? Because it's a good approximation of the science.

[calfoxwc]

Heck has never "read" or "watched" anything that doesn't agree with his leftie politics.

 

Let's give him one more chance:

******************************************

Truth is, from a freakin expert:

*********************************

Global Warming Is Natural, Not Man-Made

 

by Anthony Lupo

 

(NAPSA)—One of the fundamental tenets of our justice system is one is innocent until

proven guilty. While that doesn’t apply to scientific discovery, in the global warming debate the prevailing

attitude is that human induced global warming is already a fact of life and it is

up to doubt e r s t o prove otherwise.

 

To complete the analogy, I’ll add that to date, there is no credible evidence to

demonstrate that the climatological changes we’ve seen since the mid-1800’s are outside the bounds

of natural variability inherent in the earth’s climate system.

 

Thus, any impartial jury should not come back with a “guilty” verdict convicting humanity

of forcing recent climatological changes. Even the most ardent supporters of global warming will not

argue this point. Instead, they argue that humans are only partially responsible for the observed

climate change. If one takes a hard look at the science involved, their assertions appear to be

groundless.

 

First, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant as many claim. Carbon dioxide is good for plant life and is

a natural constituent of the atmosphere. During Earth’s long history there has been more and

less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than we see today.

 

Second, they claim that climate

is stable and slow to change, and we are accelerating climate change beyond natural variability.

 

That is also not true.

 

Climate change is generally a regional phenomenon and not a global one. Regionally, climate has

been shown to change rapidly in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Life on earth will

adapt as it has always done. Life on earth has been shown to thrive when planetary temperatures are

warmer as opposed to colder.

 

Third, they point to recent model projections that have shown that the earth will warm

as much as 11 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. One should be careful when

looking at model projections. After all, these models are crude representations

of the real atmosphere and are lacking many fundamental processes and interactions

that are inherent in the real atmosphere. The 11 degrees scenario that is thrown around the

media as if it were the mainstream prediction is an extreme scenario.

 

Most models predict anywhere from a 2 to 6 degree increase over the next century, but even these

are problematic given the myriad of problems associated with using models and interpreting their

output.

 

No one advocates destruction of the environment, and indeed we have an obligation to take care

of our environment for future generations. At the same time, we need to make sound decisions

based on scientific facts.

 

My research leads me to believe that we will not be able to state conclusively that global

warming is or is not occurring for another 30 to 70 years. We simply don’t understand the climate system

well enough nor have the data to demonstrate that humanity is having a substantial impact

on climate change.

 

Anthony R. Lupo is assistant professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri at

Columbia and served as an expert reviewer for the UN’s Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change.

 

 

 

[MLD Woody]

What was the percentage again? 97 or 98% of climate scientists disagree with you?

[heckofajobbrownie]

You'll never guess this, but Cal's scientist works for The Heartland Institute. What's The Heartland Institute, you ask?

 

"In the 1990s, the group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks, and to lobby against government public-health reforms.[9][10][11] More recently, the Institute has focused on questioning the science of human-caused climate change, and was described by the New York Times as "the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism."[12] The Institute has sponsored meetings of climate change skeptics,[13] and has been reported to promote public school curricula challenging the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change.[14]"

 

Who funds The Heartland Institute?

 

"MediaTransparency reported that Heartland received funding from politically conservative foundations such as the Castle Rock Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.[41] In 2011, the Institute received $25,000 from the Charles G. Koch Foundation.[14] The Charles Koch Foundation states that the contribution was "$25,000 to the Heartland Institute in 2011 for research in healthcare, not climate change, and this was the first and only donation the Foundation made to the institute in more than a decade".[42]

 

Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Heartland Institute, including over $600,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005.[43] Greenpeace reported that Heartland received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil.[20] In 2008, ExxonMobil said that they would stop funding to groups skeptical of climate warming, including Heartland.[43][44][45] Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, argued that ExxonMobil was simply distancing itself from Heartland out of concern for its public image.[43]

 

The Heartland Institute has also received funding and support from tobacco companies Philip Morris,[30] Altria and Reynolds American, and pharmaceutical industry firms GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and Eli Lilly.[39] The Independent reported that Heartland's receipt of donations from Exxon and Philip Morris indicates a "direct link"..."between anti-global warming sceptics funded by the oil industry and the opponents of the scientific evidence showing that passive smoking can damage people's health."[10]"

 

 

...Have a nice day.

[The Cysko Kid]

You'll never guess this, but Cal's scientist works for The Heartland Institute. What's The Heartland Institute, you ask?

 

"In the 1990s, the group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks, and to lobby against government public-health reforms.[9][10][11] More recently, the Institute has focused on questioning the science of human-caused climate change, and was described by the New York Times as "the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism."[12] The Institute has sponsored meetings of climate change skeptics,[13] and has been reported to promote public school curricula challenging the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change.[14]"

 

Who funds The Heartland Institute?

 

"MediaTransparency reported that Heartland received funding from politically conservative foundations such as the Castle Rock Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.[41] In 2011, the Institute received $25,000 from the Charles G. Koch Foundation.[14] The Charles Koch Foundation states that the contribution was "$25,000 to the Heartland Institute in 2011 for research in healthcare, not climate change, and this was the first and only donation the Foundation made to the institute in more than a decade".[42]

 

Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Heartland Institute, including over $600,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005.[43] Greenpeace reported that Heartland received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil.[20] In 2008, ExxonMobil said that they would stop funding to groups skeptical of climate warming, including Heartland.[43][44][45] Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, argued that ExxonMobil was simply distancing itself from Heartland out of concern for its public image.[43]

 

The Heartland Institute has also received funding and support from tobacco companies Philip Morris,[30] Altria and Reynolds American, and pharmaceutical industry firms GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and Eli Lilly.[39] The Independent reported that Heartland's receipt of donations from Exxon and Philip Morris indicates a "direct link"..."between anti-global warming sceptics funded by the oil industry and the opponents of the scientific evidence showing that passive smoking can damage people's health."[10]"

 

 

...Have a nice day.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPUTnGNovXI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[calfoxwc]

So, the facts and opinions of an expert don't matter when all you have to do is

 

question the source, as usual.

 

Big freakin deal.

 

Deal with it - you do this with every single expert opinion against the baloney that

 

mmgw is a fact across the board of human activity.

 

bs.

 

Sorry, you couldn't dispute the UN report, and that the CBO is now dissing the

 

Obamaocare you supported, heckbunker.

 

Try again and again. But you are good at mexican hat dancing around

 

reality.

 

Hey, I always have a nice day. Nice of you to prove you never ignore my posts, liar somebeech. HAHA

[calfoxwc]

Yes, heckbunker, you know more than Mr. Lupo. You are a liberal, you think you

 

are an expert in everything on earth and beyond.

 

Loser, HAHA

 

MMGW is a theory, NOT FACT.

 

******************************************************

 

College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources

• <LI class=navigation>

Soil, Environmental
and Atmospheric Sciences <LI class=navigation>Meet the Faculty <LI class=navigation>Academics Admissions
Advising
Organizations
Graduate
Grad Admissions
<LI class=navigation>Research <LI class=navigation>Professional Societies <LI class=navigation>Weather Forecasting <LI class=navigation>Missouri Climate Center <LI class=navigation>Contact Us <LI class=navigation> School of Natural Resources

Meet the Soil, Environmental and Atmospheric Sciences Faculty

Anthony Lupo, Ph.D.

Department Chair and Professor

Atmospheric Science

• Phone: 573-884-1638
• E-mail: <A href="mailto:lupoa@missouri.edu">LupoA@missouri.edu
• Address: 302E Anheuser-Busch Natural Resources Building
• Web site: Global Climate Change Group

Education

• A.S. 1986, Cayuga County Community College, Auburn, N.Y., Mathematics/Science
• B.S. 1988, State University of New York at Oswego, Oswego, N.Y., Meteorology
• M.S. 1991, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind., Atmospheric Science
• Ph.D. 1995, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind., Atmospheric Science

Teaching

• AS-1050, Introductory Meteorology
• AS-4800 and 7800, Numerical Methods in AS
• AS-4310 and 7310, Atmos. Thermodynamics
• AS-4320 and 7320, Atmos. Dynamics
• AS-4600, Long-Range Forecasting
• AS-4800, Numerical Methods in AS and NR
• AS-8400, Theory of the General Circulation
• AS-8600, Advanced Climate Dynamics
• AS-9300, Introduction to Chaos Theory
• AS-9350, Advanced Dynamic Meteorology

Selected Publications

• <LI class=bottom-margin>Stambaugh, M.C., R. P. Guyette, E. R. McMurry, E.R. Cook, D.M. Meko, and A.R. Lupo, 2010:
  Drought duration and frequency in the U.S. Corn Belt during the last millennium (AD 992 - 2004). Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, in press. <LI class=bottom-margin>Lupo, A.R., 2011:
  Interannual and Interdecadal variability in hurricane activity. Hurricane Research, ISBN 978-953-7619-X-X, Intech Publishers, Vienna. (Book Chapter) Lupo, A.R. Book editor. <LI class=bottom-margin>Hussain, A., and A.R. Lupo, 2010:
  Scale and stability analysis of blocking events from 2002-2004: A case study of an unusually persistent blocking event leading to a heat wave in the Gulf of Alaska during August 2004. Advances in Meteorology, Volume 2010, Article ID 610263, 15 pages doi:10.1155/2010/610263. <LI class=bottom-margin>Moon, J.T., P.E. Guinan, D. J. Snider, and A.R. Lupo, 2009:
  CoCoRaHs in Missouri: Four years later, the importance of observations. Transactions of the Missouri Academy of Science, 43, 7-18. <LI class=bottom-margin>Grathwohl, K.T., A.R. Lupo, and P. S. Market, 2009:
  A Possible Heat Island Effect from a Small Rural Community. Transactions of the Missouri Academy of Science, 43, 1 - 6. <LI class=bottom-margin>Birk, K., A.R. Lupo, P.E. Guinan, and C.E. Barbieri, 2010:
  The interannual variability of Midwestern temperatures and precipitation as related to the ENSO and PDO. Atmofera, 23, 95 - 128. <LI class=bottom-margin>Lupo, A.R. (Contributing Author Ch 6 only), 2009:
  Heartland Institute, 2009: Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), edited by Craig Idso, Ph.D., and S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. (released 2 June 2009)- 2%. <LI class=bottom-margin>Wang, Y., and A.R. Lupo, 2009:
  An extra-tropical Air-Sea Interaction over the North Pacific in Association with a preceding El Nino Episode in Early Summer. Monthly Weather Review, 137, 3771 - 3785. <LI class=bottom-margin>Market, P.S., G. Dolif Neto, A.E. Becker, B.P. Pettegrew, C.J. Melick, C.J. Schultz, P. I. Buckley, J.V. Clark, A.R. Lupo, R. Holle, N. Demetriades, and C. Barbieri 2009:
  A Comparison of Two Cases of Low-Latitude Thundersnow. Atmosfera, 22, 331- 356. <LI class=bottom-margin>Buckley, P. I., P.S. Market, A.R. Lupo, and N.I. Fox, 2008:
  COHIX: Further studies of the heat island associated with a small Midwestern city. Atms. Sci. Lett., 194, 226 - 230. DOI: 10.1002/asl.194 <LI class=bottom-margin>Lupo, A.R., T. Hagen, J. Glisan, E. Aldrich, P.E. Guinan, and P.S. Market, 2009:
  The presentation of precipitation information in television broadcasts: What is normal? Nat. Wea. Dig., 32, 155-164. <LI class=bottom-margin>Tilly, D.E., A.R. Lupo, and C.J. Melick, P.S. Market, 2008:
  Calculated height tendencies in a Southern Hemisphere blocking and cyclone event: The contribution of diabatic heating to block intensification. Monthly Weather Review, 136, 3568-3578 . <LI class=bottom-margin>Lupo, A.R., 2008:
  Reply to: "In Defense of a Theory of Anthropogenic Global warming". Journal of Missouri Medicine, 105:3, 186. <LI class=bottom-margin>Lupo, A.R., 2008:
  Anthropogenic Global Warming: A Skeptical point of view. (An invited review article for): Journal of Missouri Medicine, 105:2, 22-26. <LI class=bottom-margin>Lupo, A.R., T.K. Latham, T. Magill, J.V. Clark, C.J. Melick, and P.S. Market, 2008:
  The Interannual Variability of Hurricane Activity in the Atlantic and East Pacific Regions. National Weather Digest, Nat. Wea. Dig., 32:2 119-135. <LI class=bottom-margin>Melick, C.J., L.L. Smith, B.P. Pettegrew, A.E. Becker, P.S. Market, and A.R. Lupo, 2008:
  Investigation of Stability Characteristics of cold-season convective precipitation events by utilizing the growth rate parameter. JGR Atmospheres, 113, D08108, doi:10.1029/2007JD009063, 2008. <LI class=bottom-margin>Zuki, Md. Z., and A.R. Lupo, 2008:
  The interannual variability of tropical cyclone activity in the southern South China Sea. J. Geophys. Res., 113, D06106, doi:10.1029/2007JD009218- 14 pp. <LI class=bottom-margin>Lupo, A.R., E. P. Kelsey, D.K. Weitlich, N.A. Davis, and P.S. Market, 2008:
  Using the monthly classification of global SSTs and 500 hPa height anomalies to predict temperature and precipitation regimes one to two seasons in advance for the mid-Mississippi region. National Weather Digest, 32:1, 11-33. <LI class=bottom-margin>Foltz, C.S., Lack, S.A., Fox, N.I., Lupo, A.R., Hasheider, R.J., 2007:
  The First Conference on Advancing Renewables in the Midwest. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 88, 1097 - 1099. <LI class=bottom-margin>Market, P.S., N.I. Fox, B.P. Pettegrew, and Anthony R. Lupo, 2007:
  Second Conference on Weather Analysis and Forecasting Issues in the Central United States. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 88, 1795-1798. (40%) <LI class=bottom-margin>Lupo, A.R., I.I. Mokhov, S. Dostoglou, A.R. Kunz, and J. P. Burkhardt, 2007:
  Оценка влияния процессов планетарного масштаба с анализом фазовых траекторий и энстрофии на распад блокингов (Translated: The impact of the planetary scale on the decay of blocking and the use of phase diagrams and enstrophy as a diagnostic). Izvestiya, Atms-Oc., 43, 1 - 8. (In English version: pages 45-51) <LI class=bottom-margin>Lupo, A.R., Kelsey, E.P., D.K. Weitlich, I.I. Mokhov, F.A. Akyuz, Guinan, P.E., J.E. Woolard, 2007:
  Interannual and interdecadal variability in the predominant Pacific Region SST anomaly patterns and their impact on a local climate. Atmosfera, 20, 171- 196. <LI class=bottom-margin>Grathwohl, K., S. Scheiner, L. Brandt, and A.R. Lupo, 2006:
  Analysis of Weather Data Collected From Two Locations in a Small Urban Community. Transactions of the Missouri Academy of Science, 40, 50 - 55. <LI class=bottom-margin>Luo, D., and A.R. Lupo, 2007:
  Dynamics of eddy-driven low-frequency dipole modes. Part II: Free mode characteristics of NAO and diagnostic study. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 64, 3 - 28. <LI class=bottom-margin>Luo, D., A.R. Lupo, and H. Wan 2007:
  Dynamics of eddy-driven low-frequency dipole modes. Part I: A simple model of North Atlantic Oscillations. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 64, 29 - 51. <LI class=bottom-margin>Market, P.S., A. M. Oravetz, D. Gaede, E. Bookbinder, A.R. Lupo, C. J. Melick, L. L. Smith, R. Thomas, R. Redburn, B. P. Pettegrew, and A. E. Becker, 2006:
  Proximity Soundings of Thundersnow in the Central United States. Journal Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 111, D19208-19217. <LI class=bottom-margin>Barriopedro, D., R. Garcia-Herrera, A.R. Lupo, and E. Hernandez, 2006:
  A climatology of Northern Hemisphere Blocking. Journal of Climate, 19, 1042-1063.
• Lupo, A.R., D. Albert, R. Hearst, P.S. Market, F. Adnan Akyuz, and C.L. Allmeyer, 2005:
  Interannual Variability of Snowfall Events and Snowfall-to-Liquid Water Equivalents in Southwest Missouri. National Weather Digest, 29, 13-24.

[MLD Woody]

Its truth across the SCIENTIFIC community... that's the point

[calfoxwc]

more popular theory = mmgw.

 

More money from the left makes it go.

 

Not fact.

 

BS detector goes off every time heckbunker posts, and his flea chimes in with the usual nothing.

 

 

[MLD Woody]

So 98% of the scientists that actually study the climate disagree with you, and you say "Well they are just getting paid by the liberals"

 

You find one assistant professor working for a right wing institute that says something you like and you post going "See! See! He is an EXPERT that agrees with me! Debate over."

 

 

 

 

Damn are you blind

 

 

 

If the Tea Party, Republicans, conservatives, whatever, came out with a movement to ban eating shellfish, and they kept calling it a "liberal practice" you would probably stop eating shellfish...

[heckofajobbrownie]

You mean like this?

 

A new Washington Post poll finds that 60% of Republicans said they would support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

 

But when the same question was asked of a separate sample of respondents, this time with Obama's name attached to it, just 39% of Republicans said they would support it.

[heckofajobbrownie]

But come on. Most everyone can see through front groups who spit out research papers to "deny" global warming science. It's not that hard to spot, unless you're Cal. This professor doesn't even seem like his heart is in it. He's not even trying to refute any science - "CO2 isn't a pollutant. It's needed to grow plants. Can I have my check now?" It's not even good global warming denialism. That article reads like a Republican's son's paper for his 8th grade science class.

 

So if we couldn't move on already because Cal posted it, I think we can all move on now.

 

Still waiting for Steve to look at that graph, and tell me if he accepts that summation of the science.

[heckofajobbrownie]

So 98% of the scientists that actually study the climate disagree with you, and you say "Well they are just getting paid by the liberals"

 

You find one assistant professor working for a right wing institute that says something you like and you post going "See! See! He is an EXPERT that agrees with me! Debate over."

 

It's fun to watch, isn't it? You may never meet anyone like him ever again.

[Westside Steve]

You mean like this?

 

A new Washington Post poll finds that 60% of Republicans said they would support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

 

But when the same question was asked of a separate sample of respondents, this time with Obama's name attached to it, just 39% of Republicans said they would support it.

Shifting gears to immigration?

Well then since the President and the Democrats don't care about politics at all let's call it the Rubio plan and add in the guest worker program?

I'm sure the dems will hop on board!

WSS

[Westside Steve]

But back to the climate scientists:

Not too long ago I've researched and found a nice scientific article that explains why beer isn't all that bad when it comes to carbohydrates.

That's good news for us beer drinking fat guys, no?

I did, however, notice that the study was funded by the folks at Anheuser Busch.

 

So yes I think research teams might tend to find results that their sponsors are looking for.

Would go for government funding as well.

And don't completely forget that our competitors in Europe etcetera stand to benefit if the United States is hamstrung by regulation.

WSS

[MLD Woody]

Shifting gears to immigration?

WSS

 

No... he was providing an example to the point I made in my earlier post...

[MLD Woody]

But back to the climate scientists:

Not too long ago I've researched and found a nice scientific article that explains why beer isn't all that bad when it comes to carbohydrates.

That's good news for us beer drinking fat guys, no?

I did, however, notice that the study was funded by the folks at Anheuser Busch.

 

So yes I think research teams might tend to find results that their sponsors are looking for.

Would go for government funding as well.

And don't completely forget that our competitors in Europe etcetera stand to benefit if the United States is hamstrung by regulation.

WSS

 

So 98% of climate scientists are just finding the results their higher ups want?

 

Not all, I'm sure.

But isn't that your point concerning the naysayers?

 

Do you think that the people who don't believe it is a crisis just want to destroy the earth in 7 years?

WSS