This heat is making my wife kill me - help me fix the AC please! FAQ

I believe so but the cost has always been much higher, when we looked for a replacement portable.

More nonsense from the Frank troll, who clearly doesn't understand the meaning of the word 'draconian'.

Think again.

Local climate is not global "warming"- grok that ya moron!

Then go swim in the next King Tide to wash over Miami Leach.

Ya dolthead.

Wow, a whole 30 year data set.

Go sell that bullshite to Al Bore, ya uneducated dolthead.

As reliable as your quoting 50 years of Flori-duh temperature data, dolthead.

HAHAHAHAHA You suck at math. Did you make it out of third grade? It is a 50 year dataset you pea brained imbecile.

Suhweeeeet - I lured you back out to admit publicly that you believe 50 years of local data is sufficient to prove the global climate change hoax.

Oh gawd I LOVE IT!

You are a moron's moron Eddie P - a real "Obammy gets his 3rd term" dolthead of the first order!

As it happens, some Central European temperature datasets dates back to the 17th century.

Other temperature series, derived from many geological sources date back much further.

Leaving temperature records aside, simple physics alone explains warming due to the atmospheric fraction of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses, and that explanation dates back to the 19th century.

Oh, I bet your tiny dick got hard when you hit send. Look at the science for far more than 50 years. Oh, you have to be able to read to do that. sorry.

That is still simplistic.

Here we can blame cow farts or ours for that matter:

So the earth may be warming. Is forcing us to buy electric cars, go to heat pumps etc going to solve the problem? The power hungry seem to think so.

Yah, according to NASA "experts", the climate is changing on Mars too. Too many gas guzzlin SUVs there too?

There are two sources of carbon entering the atmosphere 1) The Carbon Cycle. The amount of carbon doesn't change, it's just moved on a annual or decadal scale between surface sources (decomposition of matter, primarily) and the atmosphere.

The methane produced by cattle production is part of the natural carbon cycle. The scale of cattle production alter the cycle slightly, but not to anywhere near the extent that burning irreplacable fossilized sunlight does.

What's your point? Yes, many substances have a bigger impact that carbon per molecule. There are far fewer sulfur hexafloride molecules released than carbon dioxide molecules (and CH4 leakage from oilfields et al), and they're easily controllable. Likewise the old refrigerants that also degrade the ozone layer.

Is.

Typical Frank argument - making s*it up. Nobody is forcing _anyone_ to buy electric cars. You've completely made that up.

Moving away from fossil fuels will go a long way towards preventing the problem from gettin worse; much damage has already been done and recovery may take generations.

And ultimately, oil and gas _will_ run out. Best to prepare while we still have energy to spare.

More imaginary speculation from Frank.

But you were using only Florida data, recent data too.

Obfuscation attempt neutralized!

Indeed, like:

Below is an actual e-mail conversation between the Climate Research Unit’s Phil Jones and climate scientist Tom Wigley. Phil Jones is the one who is largely responsible for making up the 1850-present temperature data for the Met Office in the UK (HadCRUT).

According to Peterson and Vose (1997), in 1901 the representation of maximum/minimum instrumental temperature stations in the Southern Hemisphere (SH) up through the equatorial regions (South Asia, North Africa, Central America) was negligible. Only coastal Australia had substantial instrumental representation in the early 20th century. The rest of the temperature data for the SH and equatorial regions needed to be made up to extend “global” instrumental temperature data back to 1850.

But climate hoax trolls like you corrupt actual data to suit their fascist agenda:

From Wikipedia: “Several people considered climate change "skeptics" argued that the emails showed global warming was a scientific conspiracy, that scientists manipulated climate data and attempted to suppress critics. The CRU rejected this, saying the emails had been taken out of context and merely reflected an honest exchange of ideas.“ Article Link

From the same source, and in the spirit of full disclosure, “Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.” However, if one looks at the committees, they are associated with government agencies both in the US and the UK (including the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the US Department of Commerce, and the National Science Foundation), and two from the University of Pennsylvania, home of Michael Mann (and clearly with a vested interest in the outcome), and the British International Science Assessment Panel. None of these could be considered unbiased. Of the latter committee, “The university solicited and paid for the new report, which climate skeptics assailed.“ “This is another example of the establishment circling the wagons and defending their position,” said Myron Ebell, director of energy and climate change policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington.”

NYT Article Link

One of the released emails was from Kevin Trenberth who said, "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t." Other comments from emails included "Mike's Nature trick" to “hide the decline". There was a lot of back peddling, and in spite of efforts to diffuse the obvious, the difficulty that other scientists have had trying to obtain original data and analyses to verify results belie credibility of Dr. Phil Jones and Dr. Michael Mann.

From the same Wikipedia source, “Patrick J. Michaels who was criticized in the emails and who has long faulted evidence pointing to human-driven warming, said "This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud". He said that some emails showed an effort to block the release of data for independent review, and that some messages discussed discrediting him by stating that he knew his research was wrong in his doctoral dissertation, "This shows these are people willing to bend rules and go after other people's reputations in very serious ways."

Also, Judith Curry wrote that in her opinion "there are two broader issues raised by these emails that are impeding the public credibility of climate research: lack of transparency in climate data, and 'tribalism' in some segments of the climate research community that is impeding peer review and the assessment process."

Phil Jones was targeted in criminal investigation for destruction of evidence in connection with East Anglia University Climategate after his unequivocal admission of misconduct. He was relieved of his job, but later reinstated in a similar position but with a different title.

There was extensive deception in the peer review process for publication of papers critical of “global warming. For an extremely detailed discussion of this issue, see Article Link to American Thinker

The other dominant issue on data corruption involves Dr. Michael Mann at the University of Pennsylvania, and his deceptive Hockey Stick. This is such an overwhelming issue that a separate section has been devoted to it, elsewhere in this website.

Following are numerous other, but by no means exhaustive, examples of deliberate data manipulation, attempting to shift public opinion towards believing that humans are contributing to warming of the planet.

A significant part of the temperature record comes from thermometer measurements at a large number of sites within the US. There are significant problems with much of this data, as the site locations have been in environments that have changed over the years due to urban sprawl and increased amounts of cement and asphalt in close proximity.

Compounding this problem is that many sites, which seem to be preferentially in rural areas, much less likely to be susceptible to the Urban Heat Island effect, have been shut down, skewing remaining data towards warmer average temperature readings. In response to this criticism the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN), part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has actually fabricated data to “replace” that missing.

Co2 = .04% of atmospheric gasses, period.

What aren't you going off on Argon then, simp?

Nitrogen N2 780,840 78.084 Oxygen O2 209,460 20.946 Argon Ar 9,340 0.9340 Carbon dioxide (April 2022)(C)[14] CO2 417 0.0417 Neon Ne 18.18 0.001818 Helium He 5.24 0.000524 Methane (2022)(C)[15] CH4 1.91 0.000191 Krypton Kr 1.14 0.000114

Says the Philly special fan:

You always lose decisively on this Eddie P:

“Recent revelations from the Climategate emails, originating from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, showed how all the data centers -- most notably NOAA and NASA -- conspired in the manipulation of global temperature records to suggest that temperatures in the 20th century rose faster than they actually did.” Article Link

From Wikipedia: “Several people considered climate change "skeptics" argued that the emails showed global warming was a scientific conspiracy, that scientists manipulated climate data and attempted to suppress critics. The CRU rejected this, saying the emails had been taken out of context and merely reflected an honest exchange of ideas.“ Article Link

From the same source, and in the spirit of full disclosure, “Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.” However, if one looks at the committees, they are associated with government agencies both in the US and the UK (including the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the US Department of Commerce, and the National Science Foundation), and two from the University of Pennsylvania, home of Michael Mann (and clearly with a vested interest in the outcome), and the British International Science Assessment Panel. None of these could be considered unbiased. Of the latter committee, “The university solicited and paid for the new report, which climate skeptics assailed.“ “This is another example of the establishment circling the wagons and defending their position,” said Myron Ebell, director of energy and climate change policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington.”

NYT Article Link

One of the released emails was from Kevin Trenberth who said, "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t." Other comments from emails included "Mike's Nature trick" to “hide the decline". There was a lot of back peddling, and in spite of efforts to diffuse the obvious, the difficulty that other scientists have had trying to obtain original data and analyses to verify results belie credibility of Dr. Phil Jones and Dr. Michael Mann.

From the same Wikipedia source, “Patrick J. Michaels who was criticized in the emails and who has long faulted evidence pointing to human-driven warming, said "This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud". He said that some emails showed an effort to block the release of data for independent review, and that some messages discussed discrediting him by stating that he knew his research was wrong in his doctoral dissertation, "This shows these are people willing to bend rules and go after other people's reputations in very serious ways."

Also, Judith Curry wrote that in her opinion "there are two broader issues raised by these emails that are impeding the public credibility of climate research: lack of transparency in climate data, and 'tribalism' in some segments of the climate research community that is impeding peer review and the assessment process."

Phil Jones was targeted in criminal investigation for destruction of evidence in connection with East Anglia University Climategate after his unequivocal admission of misconduct. He was relieved of his job, but later reinstated in a similar position but with a different title.

There was extensive deception in the peer review process for publication of papers critical of “global warming. For an extremely detailed discussion of this issue, see Article Link to American Thinker

The other dominant issue on data corruption involves Dr. Michael Mann at the University of Pennsylvania, and his deceptive Hockey Stick. This is such an overwhelming issue that a separate section has been devoted to it, elsewhere in this website.

Following are numerous other, but by no means exhaustive, examples of deliberate data manipulation, attempting to shift public opinion towards believing that humans are contributing to warming of the planet.

A significant part of the temperature record comes from thermometer measurements at a large number of sites within the US. There are significant problems with much of this data, as the site locations have been in environments that have changed over the years due to urban sprawl and increased amounts of cement and asphalt in close proximity.

Compounding this problem is that many sites, which seem to be preferentially in rural areas, much less likely to be susceptible to the Urban Heat Island effect, have been shut down, skewing remaining data towards warmer average temperature readings. In response to this criticism the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN), part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has actually fabricated data to “replace” that missing.

One of several planets with that activity, coincidentally...

it's as if the actual solar system is somehow heating in synchrony, and how would beastly old C02 cause that to happen?

Link to Article

Monday, March 12, 2007 Mars's ice caps are melting, and Jupiter is developing a second giant red spot, an enormous hurricane-like storm.

The existing Great Red Spot is 300 years old and twice the size of Earth. The new storm -- Red Spot Jr. -- is thought to be the result of a sudden warming on our solar system's largest planet. Dr. Imke de Pater of Berkeley University says some parts of Jupiter are now as much as six degrees Celsius warmer than just a few years ago.

Neptune's moon, Triton, studied in 1989 after the unmanned Voyageur probe flew past, seems to have heated up significantly since then. Parts of its frozen nitrogen surface have begun melting and turning to gas, making Triton's atmosphere denser.

Even Pluto has warmed slightly in recent years, if you can call -230C instead of -233C "warmer."

And I swear, I haven't left my SUV idling on any of those planets or moons. Honest, I haven't.

Is there something all these heavenly bodies have in common? Some one thing they all share that could be causing them to warm in unison?

Hmmm, is there some giant, self-luminous ball of burning gas with a mass more than 300,000 times that of Earth and a core temperature of more than 20-million degrees Celsius, that for the past century or more has been unusually active and powerful? Is there something like that around which they all revolve that could be causing this multi-globe warming? Naw!

They must all have congested commuter highways, coal-fired power plants and oilsands developments that are releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide into their atmospheres, too.

A decade ago, when global warming and Kyoto was just beginning to capture public attention, I published a quiz elsewhere that bears repeating in our current hyper-charged environmental debate: Quick, which is usually warmer, day or night?

And what is typically the warmest part of the day? The warmest time of year?

Finally, which are generally warmer: cloudy or cloudless days?

If you answered day, afternoon, summer and cloudless you may be well on your way to understanding what is causing global warming.

For the past century and a half, Earth has been warming. Coincidentally (or perhaps not so coincidentally), during that same period, our sun has been brightening, becoming more active, sending out more radiation.

Habibullah Abdussamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in St. Petersburg, Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and a host of the rest of the world's leading solar scientists are all convinced that the warming of recent years is not unusual and that nearly all the warming in the past 150 years can be attributed to the sun.

Solar scientists from Iowa to Siberia have overlaid the last several warm periods on our planet with known variations in our sun's activity and found, according to Mr. Solanki, "a near-perfect match."

Mr. Abdussamatov concedes manmade gasses may have made "a small contribution to the warming in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance."

Mr. Soon showed as long ago as the mid-1990s that the depth of the Little Ice Age -- the coldest period in the northern hemisphere in the past 1,500 years -- corresponded perfectly with a solar event known as the Maunder Minimum. For nearly seven decades there was virtually no sunspot activity.

Our sun was particular quiet. And for those 60 to 70 years, the northern half of our globe, at least, was in a deep freeze.

Is it so hard to believe then that the sun could be causing our current warming, too?

At the very least, the fact that so many prominent scientists have legitimate, logical objections to the current global warming orthodoxy means there is no "consensus" among scientists about the cause.

Here's a prediction: The sun's current active phase is expected to wane in 20 to 40 years, at which time the planet will begin cooling. Since that is when most of the greenhouse emission reductions proposed by the UN and others are slated to come into full effect, the "greens" will see that cooling and claim, "See, we warned you and made you take action, and look, we saved the planet."

Of course, they will have had nothing to do with it.

The earth is a closed loop negative feedback system.

ANY significant warming (for any reason) will result in global cooling/glaciation - as it always has and likely always will, until our sun winks out.

Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.

These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many times in the past.

Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes

William M. Gray Colorado State University This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.

Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential.

There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse gas increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of water vapour and its cloud derivatives.

It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and upper-level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming - a positive feedback loop.

It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness that some scientists hypothesise.

Negative feedback

The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this positive feedback loop.

Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.

Carbon dioxide BBC Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease not increase.

Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases.

No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such a negative feedback loop.

Climate debate has 'life of its own'

Our global climate's temperature has always fluctuated back and forth and it will continue to do so, irrespective of how much or how little greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere.

Although initially generated by honest scientific questions of how human-produced greenhouse gases might affect global climate, this topic has now taken on a life of its own.

It has been extended and grossly exaggerated and misused by those wishing to make gain from the exploitation of ignorance on this subject.

This includes the governments of developed countries, the media and scientists who are willing to bend their objectivity to obtain government grants for research on this topic.

I have closely followed the carbon dioxide warming arguments. From what I have learned of how the atmosphere ticks over 40 years of study, I have been unable to convince myself that a doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases can lead to anything but quite small and insignificant amounts of global warming.

The author is a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado where he is an expert in tropical meteorology.

Just another scam to transfer wealth from the taxpayer to the democrats pockets.

Tell us exactly how all this money is passing into "democrats pockets".

Do you mean Democrats like Elon Musk?