Henry Payne for January 31, 2014

  1. U joes mint logo rs 192x204
    Uncle Joe Premium Member about 10 years ago

    It’s called weather, Henry. Meanwhile, in the Land Down Under, they are experiencing record heat.

     •  Reply
  2. 200
    Michael Peterson Premium Member about 10 years ago

    Based on a lie. .The president’s words were “Climate change is a fact.” Not global warming. Climate change. A more accurate term, but not one that you can twist to fool the morons in your fan base..Henry, if you can’t make your point without lying, maybe your point is stupid and invalid.

     •  Reply
  3. 76d61a1e 24f8 4715 9907 6808c455736a
    neatslob Premium Member about 10 years ago

    No, it became “climate change” because of all the idiots that thought “global warming” meant it wouldn’t get cold any more. Global warming is only about a few degrees in temperature, but it’s enough to disrupt global weather patterns and cause extreme weather events, just like the ones we’ve been having lately!

     •  Reply
  4. Missing large
    Odon Premium Member about 10 years ago

    This toon sums it up. Damn the science, what’s going on in my spec of geography, this week, represents the world.

     •  Reply
  5. 300px little nemo 1906 02 11 last panel
    lonecat  about 10 years ago

    Any time those who don’t believe in global climate change want to post some science supporting their position, I’ll be happy to read it. If you don’t have the science, what’s the basis for your opinion?

     •  Reply
  6. Koala
    ransomdstone  about 10 years ago

    Thanks ODon. Each of us can see the Earth is clearly flat!

     •  Reply
  7. 300px little nemo 1906 02 11 last panel
    lonecat  about 10 years ago

    Memory isn’t always reliable. Fortunately, we have historical information on the topic, and that information shows clearly that the theory of global cooling was a minority opinion and soon abandonded:

    “Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, i.e., a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. The current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the 20th century.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

     •  Reply
  8. 300px little nemo 1906 02 11 last panel
    lonecat  about 10 years ago

    This question has been addressed several times here. I doubt that you are seriously interested in the truth.

     •  Reply
  9. 300px little nemo 1906 02 11 last panel
    lonecat  about 10 years ago

    “Estimates of sea ice extent based on satellite observations show an increasing Antarctic sea ice cover from 1979 to 2004 even though in situ observations show a prevailing warming trend in both the atmosphere and the ocean. This riddle is explored here using a global multicategory thickness and enthalpy distribution sea ice model coupled to an ocean model. Forced by the NCEP–NCAR reanalysis data, the model simulates an increase of 0.20 × 1012 m3 yr−1 (1.0% yr−1) in total Antarctic sea ice volume and 0.084 × 1012 m2 yr−1 (0.6% yr−1) in sea ice extent from 1979 to 2004 when the satellite observations show an increase of 0.027 × 1012 m2 yr−1 (0.2% yr−1) in sea ice extent during the same period. The model shows that an increase in surface air temperature and downward longwave radiation results in an increase in the upper-ocean temperature and a decrease in sea ice growth, leading to a decrease in salt rejection from ice, in the upper-ocean salinity, and in the upper-ocean density. The reduced salt rejection and upper-ocean density and the enhanced thermohaline stratification tend to suppress convective overturning, leading to a decrease in the upward ocean heat transport and the ocean heat flux available to melt sea ice. The ice melting from ocean heat flux decreases faster than the ice growth does in the weakly stratified Southern Ocean, leading to an increase in the net ice production and hence an increase in ice mass. This mechanism is the main reason why the Antarctic sea ice has increased in spite of warming conditions both above and below during the period 1979–2004 and the extended period 1948–2004.”http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI4136.1+Note in the first sentence: “even though in situ obersvations show a prevailing warming trend in both the atmosphere and the ocean”.

     •  Reply
  10. Missing large
    nate9279  about 10 years ago

    OMG! ENOUGH WITH THE IT’S COLD OUTSIDE WHERE I LIVE SO THERE’S NO GLOBAL WARMING!!! YOU DO REALIZE WE ARE HAVING THE DRIEST YEAR SINCE 1895 IN CALIFORNIA, RIGHT?! JESUS, PEOPLE!

     •  Reply
  11. 300px little nemo 1906 02 11 last panel
    lonecat  about 10 years ago

    You say, “Lie all you want, but anyone who can read can look up all of your precious “climate experts” spending most of the 1990s claiming the caps would be gone by 2005.” Can you find me some instances of climate experts int he 1990s making this claim? You know, evidence? I would be very interested to see that.

     •  Reply
  12. 300px little nemo 1906 02 11 last panel
    lonecat  about 10 years ago

    What is it about “evidence” that people find so hard to understand? Do they live their whole lives without any connection to reality?

     •  Reply
  13. 300px little nemo 1906 02 11 last panel
    lonecat  about 10 years ago

    Good comment. Now why are they so invested? As I said in an earlier comment, I would be very happy indeed if someone could show that there is no global climate change, so I have an emotional investment myself. But I guess I also have an emotional investment in avoiding disaster, if possible.

     •  Reply
  14. Missing large
    Mark Tretter  about 10 years ago

    Just a thought, how do environmentalists explain the coming and goings of the ice ages, well before there were politicians with an agenda?

     •  Reply
  15. 200
    Michael Peterson Premium Member about 10 years ago

    They use science, mtretter. I realize it’s unfair, since conservatives apparently have absolutely no access to it, but they use science.

     •  Reply
  16. 300px little nemo 1906 02 11 last panel
    lonecat  about 10 years ago

    Sometimes you sound just like your brother.

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment

More From Henry Payne