Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

El Nino not yet

63 views
Skip to first unread message

gordo

unread,
Nov 11, 2012, 8:33:14 PM11/11/12
to

So far so good. No super El Nino but NOAA has given us this
forcast.For most of us we will see Jan shortly after Dec 31st.
The amount of energy hitting the earth is about the same as last year
so we know the oceans are still heating up. I am still waiting for
someone to take my wager and deniers the computer models have really
left the room when it comes to predicting an El Nino.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/big-uncertainty-in-winter-outlook-due-to-fickle-el-nino-noaa-says/2012/10/18/2dc6b95c-1935-11e2-aa6f-3b636fecb829_blog.html

Eric©

unread,
Nov 11, 2012, 8:58:48 PM11/11/12
to
gordo wrote...
>
> So far so good. No super El Nino but NOAA has given us this
> forcast.For most of us we will see Jan shortly after Dec 31st.

They really are on the ball over at NOAA aren't they?

Chom Noamsky

unread,
Nov 11, 2012, 9:14:20 PM11/11/12
to
On 11/11/2012 5:33 PM, gordo wrote:
>
> So far so good. No super El Nino but NOAA has given us this
> forcast.For most of us we will see Jan shortly after Dec 31st.
> The amount of energy hitting the earth is about the same as last year
> so we know the oceans are still heating up. I am still waiting for
> someone to take my wager and deniers the computer models have really
> left the room when it comes to predicting an El Nino.

Climate models can't predict an El Nino just a few month in advance, but
folks at the IPCC say they can foretell the climate 25, 50, and 100
years into the future. Okeeee...

gordo

unread,
Nov 11, 2012, 9:47:20 PM11/11/12
to
On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:14:20 -0800, Chom Noamsky <ch...@noamsky.here>
wrote:
No they don't. Okeee. They make projections with scenarios. Okeee. We
are not in an El Nino or a La Nina event but the temperature last
month was the warmest on record. That should make you wonder why.

Chom Noamsky

unread,
Nov 11, 2012, 10:05:31 PM11/11/12
to
Thanks for proving my point.

Dawlish

unread,
Nov 12, 2012, 2:12:03 AM11/12/12
to
And the nutbar thinks there's a connection. (shakes head>

The ignorance is both stunning and alarming.

Dawlish

unread,
Nov 12, 2012, 2:16:11 AM11/12/12
to
They know why. They've had it clearly spelled out to them many, many times. It just doesn't fit either their beliefs, or their underlying agendas to acknowledge it. They'd rather just say that the earth has stopped warming - like this particular nutbar (and all his compadres). However, none of them can explain that statement without invoking 1998 and, as you rightly say, using the global temperatures during a super El Nino as a baseline for warming. And they want someone to debate science with them. Good grief.

They know GW continues. They are just too hypocritical to say it.

matt_sykes

unread,
Nov 12, 2012, 2:22:51 AM11/12/12
to

"Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ebc488c-3832-4394...@googlegroups.com...
Dawlish: "1998 ... using the global temperatures during a super El Nino as a
baseline for warming"

Dawlish: "1998 was a wake up call for AGW"


matt_sykes

unread,
Nov 12, 2012, 2:24:17 AM11/12/12
to

"gordo" <grme...@shaw.ca.remove> wrote in message
news:j3k0a8trq40llhit4...@4ax.com...
Yes the energy is the same and still at an elevated level compared to thre
1970s.


Dawlish

unread,
Nov 12, 2012, 2:34:09 AM11/12/12
to matt_sykes
Yes, it was and it acted as exactly that; just as 2007 did the same for Arctic sea ice. Perceptions have never been the same about GW since 1998 and perceptions of Arctic sea ice have never been the same since 2007. Why do you post this, half-brain? It is perfectly correct.

In response, what you usually do is to firstly simply post it again, as you haven't got the brains to address how deniers *always* use 1998 as a false baseline from which to judge warming. Then when you are told that you are being stupid, you can get very foul and actually begin throwing the equivalent of your own feces out of your pram to get away from the criticism.

Now you've stated that the energy in the earth's system is the same as in the 1970's.

I'll bet your mummy reads to you from the stupid book before breakfast every day, doesn't she?

gordo

unread,
Nov 12, 2012, 2:43:48 AM11/12/12
to
On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 19:05:31 -0800, Chom Noamsky <ch...@noamsky.here>
I have no idea what point you thought you were making but NOAA does
make projections on climate.They are the best that science has to
offer. You have none of your own so your silly little post has about
as much science in it as a fart in the wind. Well maybe a little less.

JohnM

unread,
Nov 12, 2012, 3:47:58 AM11/12/12
to
On Nov 12, 8:43 am, gordo <grmerr...@shaw.ca.remove> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 19:05:31 -0800, Chom Noamsky <c...@noamsky.here>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 11/11/2012 6:47 PM, gordo wrote:
> >> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:14:20 -0800, Chom Noamsky <c...@noamsky.here>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On 11/11/2012 5:33 PM, gordo wrote:
>
> >>>> So far so good. No super El Nino but NOAA has given us this
> >>>> forcast.For most of us we will see Jan shortly after Dec 31st.
> >>>> The amount of energy hitting the earth is about the same as last year
> >>>> so we know the oceans are still heating up. I am still waiting for
> >>>> someone to take my wager and deniers the computer models have really
> >>>> left the room when it comes to predicting an El Nino.
>
> >>> Climate models can't predict an El Nino just a few month in advance, but
> >>> folks at the IPCC say they can foretell the climate 25, 50, and 100
> >>> years into the future.  Okeeee
>
> >> No they don't. Okeee. They make projections with scenarios. Okeee. We
> >> are not in an El Nino or a La Nina event but the temperature last
> >> month was the warmest on record. That should make you wonder why.
>
> >Thanks for proving my point.
>
> I have no idea what point you thought you were making but NOAA does
> make projections on climate.They are the best that science has to
> offer. You have none of your own so your silly little post has about
> as much science in it as a fart in the wind. Well maybe a little less.

The point he is making is that denialists have painted themselves into
a corner, and can only repeat the same gobbledegook over and over and
over ...

matt_sykes

unread,
Nov 12, 2012, 4:05:26 AM11/12/12
to
On 12 Nov, 08:34, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, November 12, 2012 7:22:51 AM UTC, matt_sykes wrote:
> > "Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:3ebc488c-3832-4394...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Monday, November 12, 2012 2:47:28 AM UTC, gordo wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:14:20 -0800, Chom Noamsky <c...@noamsky.here>
So 1998 was a wake up call for AGW, but at the same time a cherry
picked load of crap. Good, just so we are clear about your total lack
lf integrity.


>
> In response, what you usually do is to firstly simply post it again, as you haven't got the brains to address how deniers *always* use 1998 as a false baseline from which to judge warming. Then when you are told that you are being stupid, you can get very foul and actually begin throwing the equivalent of your own feces out of your pram to get away from the criticism.
>
> Now you've stated that the energy in the earth's system is the same as in the 1970's.

More lies from Dawlish, making things up about what people said.
Classic straw man mental deficiency.

Dawlish

unread,
Nov 12, 2012, 5:11:33 AM11/12/12
to
Don't you just love half-brain. Well, actually no, because he's very stupid and backs his stupidity with racist and discriminatory insults, threats and extreme foul-mouthed dreadfulness.

Would you like me to put that in the thread header, half-brain? It's very easy and I'm happy to do that, because it is true.


Chom Noamsky

unread,
Nov 12, 2012, 9:35:03 AM11/12/12
to
Good thing you brought up the El Nino forecast failure because I see the
point really got under your skin. Can't forecast an El Nino just a few
months ahead but the same climate models are good for 25, 50 and 100
years in the future. Lol!

Dawlish

unread,
Nov 12, 2012, 9:44:49 AM11/12/12
to
The nutbar repeats his earlier idiocy, in not knowing there is no connection, but can't see the people laughing at him for doing so......<laughing>

Dawlish

unread,
Nov 12, 2012, 10:00:46 AM11/12/12
to

"gordo" <grme...@shaw.ca.remove> wrote in message
news:j3k0a8trq40llhit4...@4ax.com...
>
What do you know about El nino? Nothing! I am the El Nino expert here so
stop trying to copy me.


1/3 of land cooling

unread,
Nov 12, 2012, 3:22:30 PM11/12/12
to
On Tuesday, 13 November 2012 04:00:26 UTC+13, Dawlish wrote:
> "gordo" <grmerr...@shaw.ca.remove> wrote in message
>
> news:j3k0a8trq40llhit4en8j3ak85q3fh1...@4ax.com...
>
> >
>
> > So far so good. No super El Nino but NOAA has given us this
>
> > forcast.For most of us we will see Jan shortly after Dec 31st.
>
> > The amount of energy hitting the earth is about the same as last year
>
> > so we know the oceans are still heating up. I am still waiting for
>
> > someone to take my wager and deniers the computer models have really
>
> > left the room when it comes to predicting an El Nino.
>
> >
>
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/big-uncertainty-in-winter-outlook-due-to-fickle-el-nino-noaa-says/2012/10/18/2dc6b95c-1935-11e2-aa6f-3b636fecb829_blog.html
>
==========>
=>
=> What do you know about El nino? Nothing! I am the El Nino expert here so stop trying to copy me.

Dumblish, did you study El Nino as part of your BSc in Embroidery?

Dumblish is definitely the El Ninny expert here. Nobody would ever try to take that away from him. <laughing>

James

unread,
Nov 12, 2012, 5:30:29 PM11/12/12
to
"gordo" <grme...@shaw.ca.remove> wrote in message
news:j3k0a8trq40llhit4...@4ax.com
Should we care?

Dawlish

unread,
Nov 13, 2012, 3:29:51 AM11/13/12
to
No-one cares what you think, jimmy-cut-and-paste, but I can assure you that all nations care, all scientific institutions care, all national science academies care.

You? Total waste of good space for atmosphere.

James

unread,
Nov 13, 2012, 11:01:35 PM11/13/12
to
"Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:564ea67f-4ead-4b08...@googlegroups.com
> On Monday, November 12, 2012 10:30:29 PM UTC, James wrote:
>> "gordo" <grme...@shaw.ca.remove> wrote in message
>>
>> news:j3k0a8trq40llhit4...@4ax.com
>>
>
>>
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/big-uncertainty-in-winter-outlook-due-to-fickle-el-nino-noaa-says/2012/10/18/2dc6b95c-1935-11e2-aa6f-3b636fecb829_blog.html
>>
>>
>>
>> Should we care?
>
> No-one cares what you think, jimmy-cut-and-paste, but I can assure
> you that all nations care, all scientific institutions care, all
> national science academies care.
>
Another lie.

Dawlish

unread,
Nov 14, 2012, 2:57:54 AM11/14/12
to
No evidence for that, because you have none; just a jimmy-cut-and-paste hope to tell himself that he's not really in the tiny. tiny minority that he is.

What a waste of space you are.

erschro...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 14, 2012, 1:24:10 PM11/14/12
to
On Nov 13, 11:01 pm, "James" <kingk...@fewpb.net> wrote:
> "Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:564ea67f-4ead-4b08...@googlegroups.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Monday, November 12, 2012 10:30:29 PM UTC, James wrote:
> >> "gordo" <grmerr...@shaw.ca.remove> wrote in message
>
> >>news:j3k0a8trq40llhit4...@4ax.com
>
> >>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/big-unc...
>
> >> Should we care?
>
> > No-one cares what you think, jimmy-cut-and-paste, but I can assure
> > you that all nations care, all scientific institutions care, all
> > national science academies care.
>
> Another lie.

OK, a couple of months ago, you said that, and I asked you -- no,
challenged you -- to list any national science academies or scientific
organizations which said GW was not real or that humans were not the
primary cause. You slinked away then without answering, so now I dare
you. List them.

James

unread,
Nov 14, 2012, 2:02:39 PM11/14/12
to
<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:de93651b-bec5-4f87...@o8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
>>
>>>> Should we care?
>>
>>> No-one cares what you think, jimmy-cut-and-paste, but I can assure
>>> you that all nations care, all scientific institutions care, all
>>> national science academies care.
>>
>> Another lie.
>
> OK, a couple of months ago, you said that, and I asked you -- no,
> challenged you -- to list any national science academies or scientific
> organizations which said GW was not real or that humans were not the
> primary cause. You slinked away then without answering, so now I dare
> you. List them.
--
Decisions of all the scientific organisations in the world are made by a
few political people .Members are not consulted or polled.

Now you are telling me that they all care too. You're a liar and can't
even list all the science orgs in the world anyway.




erschro...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 14, 2012, 4:33:49 PM11/14/12
to
On Nov 14, 2:02 pm, "James" <kingk...@fewpb.net> wrote:
> <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Hey, James, found any national science academies that don't accept
AGW? Any scientific organizations? You said it was "a lie" that all
of them accepted it, so man up and present your case.

Dawlish

unread,
Nov 15, 2012, 1:28:25 AM11/15/12
to
Just pure, outright, stupid denial.

Now every single scientific institution in the world and every National science academy on the planet are completely out of touch with their membership.

How these deniers fuel their denial is quite incredible. And, of course, the comment really is unbelievable. And utterly stupid.

Go and think about what you have said and be embarrassed. Any denier want to tell jimmy-cut-and-paste that what he's just said is steeped in complete stupidity? I very much doubt it, because this lunacy is what you believe as well, isn't it?

gordo asked you for *one* that doesn't care, jimmy-cut-and-paste. Just *one*. Find one instead of squirming on your pin, in painful ignorance.
0 new messages