As the temp difference between arctic and temperate regions lessens, the
jetstream weakens and begins to wander....
http://www.weather.com/news/science/...rming-20140106

On 1/7/2014 4:03 PM, Bob F wrote:
As the temp difference between arctic and temperate regions lessens, the
jetstream weakens and begins to wander....
http://www.weather.com/news/science/...rming-20140106



LOL! Want a link to a jet stream web-site? The jet stream is not doing
anything that it has not done before.

You are using awfully big words for ko0oks that think a man who lives on the clouds control their destiny.

SteveF wrote:
On 1/7/2014 4:03 PM, Bob F wrote:
As the temp difference between arctic and temperate regions lessens,
the jetstream weakens and begins to wander....
http://www.weather.com/news/science/...rming-20140106



LOL! Want a link to a jet stream web-site? The jet stream is not
doing anything that it has not done before.

LOL! It is pretty hard for a rightard to understand.
..

On 1/7/2014 4:42 PM, Bob F wrote:


LOL! It is pretty hard for a rightard to understand.

Something to confuse you.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/ocxste9

I haven't read it yet. Let me know how it goes.

On Tue, 07 Jan 2014 16:47:00 -0600, SteveF wrote:

On 1/7/2014 4:42 PM, Bob F wrote:


LOL! It is pretty hard for a rightard to understand.

Something to confuse you.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/ocxste9

I haven't read it yet. Let me know how it goes.


You son of a bitch! It's not fair to use facts! You should be
ashamed of yourself.

On Tue, 7 Jan 2014 14:03:41 -0800, "Bob F"
wrote:

jetstream weakens and begins to wander....

I've never seen a jet stream "wander". Even on TV

Keep drinkin' the kook-aid Bob.

On 1/7/2014 5:47 PM, SteveF wrote:
On 1/7/2014 4:42 PM, Bob F wrote:


LOL! It is pretty hard for a rightard to understand.

Something to confuse you.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/ocxste9

I haven't read it yet. Let me know how it goes.




Here's another I found interesting:

http://english.pravda.ru/science/ear...rming_fraud-0/

You can't call these guys right wingers

The whole thing is a political issue. The science is not settled that
we may be warming. To say man is the main cause is a real stretch.
The control freaks love global warming as an excuse to take control.

On 1/7/2014 5:16 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jan 2014 14:03:41 -0800, "Bob F"
wrote:

jetstream weakens and begins to wander....

I've never seen a jet stream "wander". Even on TV

Keep drinkin' the kook-aid Bob.


Actually, it does. But, this is normal. This arctic vortex crap
being tossed about the past few days is a joke, along with some
jokers naming "winter storms". What a sensationalist gimmick.
I have been using this website for over 15 years:

http://squall.sfsu.edu/crws/jetstream.html

I laugh at these asshats who buy into this crap - hook, line, and
sinker. I used to work in the field of "greenhouse gas abatement".
20 years ago we would have laughed at all of this CO2 bullsh$t.
Hell, I laughed at the ozone hole. To this day I still cannot figure
out how to put a hole in a gas. Most of the retards back then did
not know what ozone was, nor how the layer is formed. After awhile
one just gives up on trying to explain things.

On 1/7/2014 5:01 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:


You son of a bitch! It's not fair to use facts! You should be
ashamed of yourself.


Hanging head in shame... :-)

On 1/7/2014 4:47 PM, SteveF wrote:
On 1/7/2014 4:42 PM, Bob F wrote:


LOL! It is pretty hard for a rightard to understand.

Something to confuse you.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/ocxste9

I haven't read it yet. Let me know how it goes.




Oh boy. The ice age is coming! Who can we tax for that?

SteveF wrote:
On 1/7/2014 4:42 PM, Bob F wrote:


LOL! It is pretty hard for a rightard to understand.

Something to confuse you.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/ocxste9

I haven't read it yet. Let me know how it goes.

There are plenty of papers refuting similarly concieved claims
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/ant...pers-debunked/

On Tue, 07 Jan 2014 18:03:20 -0600, SteveF wrote:

On 1/7/2014 5:16 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jan 2014 14:03:41 -0800, "Bob F"
wrote:

jetstream weakens and begins to wander....

I've never seen a jet stream "wander". Even on TV

Keep drinkin' the kook-aid Bob.


Actually, it does. But, this is normal. This arctic vortex crap
being tossed about the past few days is a joke, along with some
jokers naming "winter storms". What a sensationalist gimmick.
I have been using this website for over 15 years:

http://squall.sfsu.edu/crws/jetstream.html

I laugh at these asshats who buy into this crap - hook, line, and
sinker. I used to work in the field of "greenhouse gas abatement".
20 years ago we would have laughed at all of this CO2 bullsh$t.
Hell, I laughed at the ozone hole. To this day I still cannot figure
out how to put a hole in a gas. Most of the retards back then did
not know what ozone was, nor how the layer is formed. After awhile
one just gives up on trying to explain things.



The link speaks of wind speed in knots. Did not find "wander", yet.

Bob can tell us what _wander_ means? Never heard of it.

On 1/7/2014 7:03 PM, SteveF wrote:
On 1/7/2014 5:16 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jan 2014 14:03:41 -0800, "Bob F"
wrote:

jetstream weakens and begins to wander....

I've never seen a jet stream "wander". Even on TV

Keep drinkin' the kook-aid Bob.


Actually, it does. But, this is normal. This arctic vortex crap
being tossed about the past few days is a joke, along with some
jokers naming "winter storms". What a sensationalist gimmick.
I have been using this website for over 15 years:

http://squall.sfsu.edu/crws/jetstream.html

I laugh at these asshats who buy into this crap - hook, line, and
sinker. I used to work in the field of "greenhouse gas abatement".
20 years ago we would have laughed at all of this CO2 bullsh$t.
Hell, I laughed at the ozone hole. To this day I still cannot figure
out how to put a hole in a gas. Most of the retards back then did
not know what ozone was, nor how the layer is formed. After awhile
one just gives up on trying to explain things.




Once read in the local paper, that ozone is an odorless, colorless gas
and the main pollutant in smog.

Three technical errors in one sentence.

If 20% of the populace is functionally illiterate, just imagine the
percentage that is technically illiterate.

On 01/07/2014 07:45 PM, Frank wrote:
Once read in the local paper, that ozone is an odorless, colorless gas and the main pollutant in smog.

Three technical errors in one sentence.

If 20% of the populace is functionally illiterate, just imagine the percentage that is technically illiterate.

It depends on whether it is GMO ozone, if it was generated with single or two phase power and the wind chill factor.

In ,
Bob F belched:
SteveF wrote:
On 1/7/2014 4:42 PM, Bob F wrote:


LOL! It is pretty hard for a rightard to understand.

Something to confuse you.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/ocxste9

I haven't read it yet. Let me know how it goes.

There are plenty of papers refuting similarly concieved claims
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/ant...pers-debunked/

and just as many to refute yours too

ChairMan wrote:
In ,
Bob F belched:
SteveF wrote:
On 1/7/2014 4:42 PM, Bob F wrote:


LOL! It is pretty hard for a rightard to understand.

Something to confuse you.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/ocxste9

I haven't read it yet. Let me know how it goes.

There are plenty of papers refuting similarly concieved claims
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/ant...pers-debunked/

and just as many to refute yours too

Yes?

No, gentlemen, the correct way to understand the severe cold in America as of late is to realize that:

"WEATHER" IS THE AVERAGE OF EXTREMES.

All of my life I've been hearing people talk about how crazy the weather has been lately. When I was 10 years old I heard about frost damaging the citrus harvest in Florida and snow in Jamaica.

Weather is the average of extremes, and the extreme cold weather in many American states recently is just one more of those extreme weather events that gets documented in the record books, only to be forgotten in a few years time.

The cold weather is neither significant nor an indication of global warming nor global cooling. It's just yet another extreme weather event that we get multiple times per year like Hurricane Sandy, the extreme rains that caused flooding in Colorado and the drought driven brush fires in California (was it?) last summer. All of those were significant in the lives of the people they affected, but insignificant in indicating which way the climate of the globe is headed.

Donald Trump recently stated that the cold weather in the American northeast is proof that global warming is a fallacy. With all due respect to Donald Trump, he knows as much about climatology as Ralph Lauren knows about latex paint.

The correct thing to do is dress warmly and hunker down for the long haul. My experience as a Canadian is that winters that start off cold tend to stay cold. But, this year's winter is absolutely no indication of what next year's winter will be like. So, it's always a mistake to read too much into the weather. After all, no where do you find more variation, and hence wild extremes, than in weather events.

"Bob F" wrote in message
...
As the temp difference between arctic and temperate regions lessens, the
jetstream weakens and begins to wander....
http://www.weather.com/news/science/...rming-20140106

--
There has been NO warming in 16 years now. Next.

On 1/7/2014 8:19 PM, Uncle Buck wrote:
On 01/07/2014 07:45 PM, Frank wrote:
Once read in the local paper, that ozone is an odorless, colorless gas
and the main pollutant in smog.

Three technical errors in one sentence.

If 20% of the populace is functionally illiterate, just imagine the
percentage that is technically illiterate.

It depends on whether it is GMO ozone, if it was generated with single
or two phase power and the wind chill factor.

Great letter in today's paper with writer requesting that the paper does
not publish columns from global warming deniers.

On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 6:42:38 PM UTC-5, Frank wrote:
On 1/7/2014 5:47 PM, SteveF wrote:

On 1/7/2014 4:42 PM, Bob F wrote:





LOL! It is pretty hard for a rightard to understand.



Something to confuse you.



http://preview.tinyurl.com/ocxste9



I haven't read it yet. Let me know how it goes.









Here's another I found interesting:



http://english.pravda.ru/science/ear...rming_fraud-0/



You can't call these guys right wingers



No, but you can call the guy who says all kinds of science
from global warming to E=MC2 is wrong, unqualified.

"Gary Novak is mushroom scientist with Masters Degree in Microbiology and does independent research on a farm where he lives. "





The whole thing is a political issue. The science is not settled that

we may be warming. To say man is the main cause is a real stretch.

The control freaks love global warming as an excuse to take control.

On 1/8/2014 8:01 AM, Frank wrote:

Great letter in today's paper with writer requesting that the paper does
not publish columns from global warming deniers.

Is that in the USA where we had / have free
speech rights?

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 1/8/2014 8:17 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 1/8/2014 8:01 AM, Frank wrote:

Great letter in today's paper with writer requesting that the paper does
not publish columns from global warming deniers.

Is that in the USA where we had / have free
speech rights?


It's the modern liberal mindset where they say conservatives are in
favor of censorship but the libs practice it themselves.

There are editorial boards at the papers that discuss whether or not
they will publish something.

I actually have an email from a local reporter that when I asked him why
the paper did not mention Biden's daughter's arrest several years ago,
says that they would never do that and that reporters had to swear an
oath of allegiance to the Democrat party to work there.

On Wed, 08 Jan 2014 09:10:52 -0500, Frank
wrote in

On 1/8/2014 8:17 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 1/8/2014 8:01 AM, Frank wrote:

Great letter in today's paper with writer requesting that the paper does
not publish columns from global warming deniers.

Is that in the USA where we had / have free
speech rights?


It's the modern liberal mindset where they say conservatives are in
favor of censorship but the libs practice it themselves.

There are editorial boards at the papers that discuss whether or not
they will publish something.

I actually have an email from a local reporter that when I asked him why
the paper did not mention Biden's daughter's arrest several years ago,
says that they would never do that and that reporters had to swear an
oath of allegiance to the Democrat party to work there.

Like swearing an oath of allegiance to the Nazi party in 1933 Germany?
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.

On 1/8/2014 9:45 AM, CRNG wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jan 2014 09:10:52 -0500, Frank
Is that in the USA where we had / have free
speech rights?


It's the modern liberal mindset where they say conservatives are in
favor of censorship but the libs practice it themselves.

There are editorial boards at the papers that discuss whether or not
they will publish something.

I actually have an email from a local reporter that when I asked him why
the paper did not mention Biden's daughter's arrest several years ago,
says that they would never do that and that reporters had to swear an
oath of allegiance to the Democrat party to work there.

Like swearing an oath of allegiance to the Nazi party in 1933 Germany?

Javoe, mein herr. Gut!!

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

In article ,
Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 1/8/2014 8:01 AM, Frank wrote:

Great letter in today's paper with writer requesting that the paper does
not publish columns from global warming deniers.

Is that in the USA where we had / have free
speech rights?

Not a First Amendment issue unless the government is involved.

The newspaper can exercise its free speech rights by publishing or
refraining from publishing anything it wishes.

Global warming deniers (or anybody else for that matter) don't have
a free speech right to be published in the newspaper.

Cindy Hamilton
--

On 1/8/2014 9:45 AM, CRNG wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jan 2014 09:10:52 -0500, Frank
wrote in

On 1/8/2014 8:17 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 1/8/2014 8:01 AM, Frank wrote:

Great letter in today's paper with writer requesting that the paper does
not publish columns from global warming deniers.

Is that in the USA where we had / have free
speech rights?


It's the modern liberal mindset where they say conservatives are in
favor of censorship but the libs practice it themselves.

There are editorial boards at the papers that discuss whether or not
they will publish something.

I actually have an email from a local reporter that when I asked him why
the paper did not mention Biden's daughter's arrest several years ago,
says that they would never do that and that reporters had to swear an
oath of allegiance to the Democrat party to work there.

Like swearing an oath of allegiance to the Nazi party in 1933 Germany?


Our media gives credence as to how this could have ever happened to the
intelligent German populace.

On Wed, 08 Jan 2014 18:55:11 GMT, (Cindy Hamilton)
wrote:

Great letter in today's paper with writer requesting that the paper does
not publish columns from global warming deniers.

Is that in the USA where we had / have free
speech rights?

Not a First Amendment issue unless the government is involved.

The newspaper can exercise its free speech rights by publishing or
refraining from publishing anything it wishes.

Global warming deniers (or anybody else for that matter) don't have
a free speech right to be published in the newspaper.

Cindy Hamilton

Cindy,

All your answers are correct. A+

....53°F...still in shorts

BurfordTJustice wrote:
"Bob F" wrote in message
...
As the temp difference between arctic and temperate regions lessens,
the jetstream weakens and begins to wander....
http://www.weather.com/news/science/...rming-20140106

There has been NO warming in 16 years now. Next.

LOL! Only if you ignore reality.

Bob F wrote:
BurfordTJustice wrote:
"Bob F" wrote in message
...
As the temp difference between arctic and temperate regions lessens,
the jetstream weakens and begins to wander....
http://www.weather.com/news/science/...rming-20140106

There has been NO warming in 16 years now. Next.

LOL! Only if you ignore reality.


Hi,
Reality is how many glaciers are left in the Rockies?

Tony Hwang wrote:
Bob F wrote:
BurfordTJustice wrote:
"Bob F" wrote in message
...
As the temp difference between arctic and temperate regions lessens,
the jetstream weakens and begins to wander....
http://www.weather.com/news/science/...rming-20140106

There has been NO warming in 16 years now. Next.

LOL! Only if you ignore reality.


Hi,
Reality is how many glaciers are left in the Rockies?

And everywhere else in the world.
And how much ice is left in the arctic. Volume, not extent.
Sea level changes.
Warming oceans.
..........

On 1/8/2014 6:20 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Bob F wrote:
BurfordTJustice wrote:
"Bob F" wrote in message
...
As the temp difference between arctic and temperate regions lessens,
the jetstream weakens and begins to wander....
http://www.weather.com/news/science/...rming-20140106


There has been NO warming in 16 years now. Next.

LOL! Only if you ignore reality.


Hi,
Reality is how many glaciers are left in the Rockies?

Who cares? Doesn't mean squat.

On 1/7/2014 6:33 PM, Bob F wrote:
SteveF wrote:
On 1/7/2014 4:42 PM, Bob F wrote:


LOL! It is pretty hard for a rightard to understand.

Something to confuse you.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/ocxste9

I haven't read it yet. Let me know how it goes.

There are plenty of papers refuting similarly concieved claims
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/ant...pers-debunked/


Yeah, look at the source.

On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 14:22:32 -0600, SteveF wrote:

Reality is how many glaciers are left in the Rockies?

Who cares? Doesn't mean squat.

Right. In other news, Nevada is no longer a salt water ocean ...

"...NRS 235.080 State fossil. The prehistoric marine reptile known as
the Ichthyosaur, genus Shonisaurus, now extinct, is hereby designated
as the official state fossil of the State of Nevada.
(Added to NRS by 1977, 272; A 1989, 1038)"

53°F ... still in shorts

SteveF wrote:
On 1/8/2014 6:20 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Bob F wrote:
BurfordTJustice wrote:
"Bob F" wrote in message
...
As the temp difference between arctic and temperate regions lessens,
the jetstream weakens and begins to wander....
http://www.weather.com/news/science/...rming-20140106



There has been NO warming in 16 years now. Next.

LOL! Only if you ignore reality.


Hi,
Reality is how many glaciers are left in the Rockies?

Who cares? Doesn't mean squat.
Hi,
I care for future generations.
When you don't have water then can say
the same?

On 1/9/2014 3:04 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 14:22:32 -0600, SteveF wrote:

Reality is how many glaciers are left in the Rockies?

Who cares? Doesn't mean squat.

Right. In other news, Nevada is no longer a salt water ocean ...

"...NRS 235.080 State fossil. The prehistoric marine reptile known as
the Ichthyosaur, genus Shonisaurus, now extinct, is hereby designated
as the official state fossil of the State of Nevada.
(Added to NRS by 1977, 272; A 1989, 1038)"

53°F ... still in shorts


Thanks for the geologic input. Go plate tectonics!

On 1/9/2014 3:36 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:
SteveF wrote:

Hi,
I care for future generations.
When you don't have water then can say
the same?

So, conditions on this planet are a polaroid shot? Never changing?
Here is a news flash. This planet is still coming out of an ice age.
Oddly enough, it is still cooler, today, than it was in the period
from around 1500 to 7500 years ago. Yes, that entire time span was
warmer than today. Substantially so, too. It might seem shocking
to you, and many others, but today's climate is going to change
whether there are humans on this planet, or not. It has been much
warmer, and it has been much colder. The CO2 content of the Earth's
atmosphere had zero to do with any change in the Earth's climate,
and, in fact, during a few ice ages the CO2 content was 4-5 times
current levels.

Read carefully: CO2 increases follow temperature increases. Not the
other way. CO2 is a symptom, not a cause of warmer temperatures. The
climate on this planet has more to do with geologic and extra-terrestial
influences more than anything else.

The land masses move, seas are changed.
Large junk hits the planet from outside of Earth's orbit.
Some volcanoes have humongous eruptions.
Solar output varies.

Nothing is set in stone at the moment. 200 years ago the Earth dipped
way down in temperature. This was called a mini ice age. Sometimes
changes last for a few years to a decade or so. Sometimes they change
for millions of years. This depends on the cause.

Currently the climate quacks are worrying about methane being released
from melting ice. Methane is a true greenhouse gas, as much as that
misnomer of a phrase is thrown about today, and was not that gas already
in place long before any human influence? What about the CO2 being
released by melting ice? Wait, what melting ice? The main chunk we
need worry about is not melting. That chunk is in Antarctica. I would
really like to know the last time that place even sniffed 30 degrees F.

SteveF wrote:
On 1/9/2014 3:36 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:
SteveF wrote:

Hi,
I care for future generations.
When you don't have water then can say
the same?

So, conditions on this planet are a polaroid shot? Never changing?
Here is a news flash. This planet is still coming out of an ice age.
Oddly enough, it is still cooler, today, than it was in the period
from around 1500 to 7500 years ago. Yes, that entire time span was
warmer than today. Substantially so, too. It might seem shocking
to you, and many others, but today's climate is going to change
whether there are humans on this planet, or not. It has been much
warmer, and it has been much colder. The CO2 content of the Earth's
atmosphere had zero to do with any change in the Earth's climate,
and, in fact, during a few ice ages the CO2 content was 4-5 times
current levels.

Read carefully: CO2 increases follow temperature increases. Not the
other way. CO2 is a symptom, not a cause of warmer temperatures. The
climate on this planet has more to do with geologic and extra-terrestial
influences more than anything else.

The land masses move, seas are changed.
Large junk hits the planet from outside of Earth's orbit.
Some volcanoes have humongous eruptions.
Solar output varies.

Nothing is set in stone at the moment. 200 years ago the Earth dipped
way down in temperature. This was called a mini ice age. Sometimes
changes last for a few years to a decade or so. Sometimes they change
for millions of years. This depends on the cause.

Currently the climate quacks are worrying about methane being released
from melting ice. Methane is a true greenhouse gas, as much as that
misnomer of a phrase is thrown about today, and was not that gas already
in place long before any human influence? What about the CO2 being
released by melting ice? Wait, what melting ice? The main chunk we
need worry about is not melting. That chunk is in Antarctica. I would
really like to know the last time that place even sniffed 30 degrees F.


And NW passage is opening up. We have LONG climate cycle spanning 10s,
100s thousand years. Within that cycle we have smaller cycles. The
problem is now the air is dirtier, we're losing Ozone layer, famine in
many parts of the woron't believe ld, rivers are drying up, glaciers are
disappearing. What is happening at Lake Mead? Aral sea? desert regions
are expanding.... We're all entitled to own opinion. No sense arguing
back and forth. Time will tell. But we won't live long enough to see the
verdict. Read many books by anthropologist, archeologist, biologist,
historian. Don't believe why no one lives on Christmas Island?

Tony Hwang wrote in news:bDEzu.319011$6F.281514
@fx03.iad:

Hi,
I care for future generations.

You are full of ****.

When you don't have water then can say
the same?



If you care about future generations, then why do you want to burden them
with hundreds of trillions of dollars of this generations debt that this
generation has no intention of paying off. That is a political decision
that this generation repeatedly makes every two years. Do you care about
that?

Zaky Waky wrote:
Tony Hwang wrote in news:bDEzu.319011$6F.281514
@fx03.iad:

Hi,
I care for future generations.

You are full of ****.

When you don't have water then can say
the same?



If you care about future generations, then why do you want to burden
them with hundreds of trillions of dollars of this generations debt
that this generation has no intention of paying off. That is a
political decision that this generation repeatedly makes every two
years. Do you care about that?

Why is it that Right wingers NEVER complained about Reagan tripleing the debt,
Bush 1 doubleing it, Bush two more than doubleing it? Some how it's only a
problem when a Democrat is in the white house.