Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Global Cooling Trend
Posted by:
Pancks(1)
()
Date: February 09, 2010 03:46PM
This ought to get the unthinking, propagandized lib idiot's blood pressure up!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html
Re: Global Cooling Trend
Posted by:
Hahahahahhahahaha!~
()
Date: February 09, 2010 04:10PM
Pancks(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This ought to get the unthinking, propagandized
> lib idiot's blood pressure up!
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-124
> 2011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html
dumb, tired and repetitive
try something about republican new ideas. wait. you won't find any!
-------------------------------------------------------
> This ought to get the unthinking, propagandized
> lib idiot's blood pressure up!
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-124
> 2011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html
dumb, tired and repetitive
try something about republican new ideas. wait. you won't find any!
Re: Global Cooling Trend
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: February 09, 2010 04:46PM
Here you go genius boy...take your lies and go home. Or go join the flat earth society and be happy that you are a republikan lemming.
Addressing “Global Cooling”
Written by Zachary Shahan
Published on January 15th, 201013 CommentsPosted in About Climate, About Science, In Global
Give people a little winter weather and they cry out that global climate change is a myth.
Well, unfortunately, that is not the case.
Before we get too excited about the cold weather, here are a few things to look at, including the fact that the scientist who said we were entering “global cooling” doesn’t really say so at all.
» See also: Climate Change Sets Rural Livelihoods Off Course in Zimbabwe
» Get EcoLocalizer by RSS or sign up by email.
vote
nowBuzz up!2nd Hottest Year on Record, at End of Hottest Decade (So Far)
Throughout the year, as I was keeping up with the climate change news, I also saw several articles talking about how we were actually entering a cooling phase. As the year comes to a close, we can see clearly that it hasn’t started yet!
2009 was the hottest year on record in the southern hemisphere and tied for 2nd hottest ever globally. This is coming at the end of the hottest decade on record, too. As part of that, we did see record lows, but (in the US, at least), there were more than twice as many record highs.
And, despite recent cold weather in some places — much of the US and Europe — you can see in one of my recent articles on our sister site CleanTechnica that other areas of the world are seeing much warmer temperatures and the global average has been higher than normal.
This is all despite a huge drop in sunspots in recent years and despite the fact that it was only a medium-strength El Niño year. With a stronger El Niño expected in 2010, some (Hansen and the UK Met Office) are predicting that 2010 might be the new hottest year on record.
‘Global Cooling’ Scientist Sets the Record Straight
It is largely the work of Dr. Mojib Latif (one piece of work, actually) that has had headlines on some mainstream news sources saying that we are entering a period of global cooling. However, as Climate Progress reports, “Anyone who thought Latif, head of the Ocean Circulation and Climate Dynamics Division at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, was not a firm believer in human-caused global warming and the threat it poses, missed his 2009 book, Climate Change: The Point of No Return (The Sustainability Project). And they missed the NPR interview where he said, ‘If my name was not Mojib Latif, my name would be global warming. So I really believe in global warming.’”
In an effort to clear up the misunderstandings or misinterpretations of his work (which many media sites don’t seem too eager to clear up), Dr. Latif has this to say:
Given all the warnings about and plans to forestall global warming, people may be surprised to find, over the next several years that, over parts of the Northern hemisphere, summers are no warmer than before, maybe even a bit cooler–and that winters are as cold, or a bit colder, than they have been in the past couple of decades.
This is because the climate may go through a temporary halt in warming. It’s nothing unusual, just a natural fluctuation. It doesn’t mean that global warming is not still at work, or that we no longer need to worry about global temperatures rising by as much as 6°C by the end of the century — an unprecedented warming in the history of mankind if no measures are taken to cut global carbon dioxide emissions.
Furthermore, he writes that none of these findings are surprising to a climate scientists and they say nothing about the long term climate change or global warming trend:
The past record of globally averaged surface air temperature illustrates how gradual warming and short-term fluctuations can operate side by side. The temperature ups and downs superimposed on the 20th century warming trend reflect the natural variability. To some extent, we need to ignore these fluctuations, if we want to detect the human influence on climate.
Consider, for instance, the mid-century warming that was observed from 1930 to 1940. Had forecasters extrapolated into the future, they would have predicted far more warming than actually occurred. Likewise, a brief cooling trend, if used as the basis for a long-range forecast could erroneously support the idea of a rapidly approaching ice age.
Natural climate variations may be produced by the climate system itself. A well-known example is El Niño, a warming of the Equatorial Pacific occurring on average about every 4 years. The record El Niño 1997/1998 helped to make 1998 the warmest year to date. The last year happened to be a moderate El Niño year, one reason, for instance, for the weak hurricane season in 2009. Volcanic eruptions and fluctuations in solar output can also bring temporary climate change. The Philippine volcano Mt. Pinatubo caused a temperature drop in 1991. And an increase of the solar radiation reaching the earth contributed to the mid-century warming.
We predict the coming years may see two natural oscillations, the Pacific Decadal and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, swinging into their negative phase, leading to a cooling of sea surface temperatures in large parts of both the Pacific and Atlantic. A temporary halt in the global warming trend may be the consequence — nothing surprising to a climate scientist.
It is also possible that the current El Niño, combined with the long-term warming trend, takes us to record temperatures this year — again, nothing surprising to a climate scientist.
Climate Gate?
And if you thought the Hadley/CRU data that many predictions use were making global climate change seem bigger than it is likely to actually be, think again. More accurate data actually show even more disturbing trends.
If that doesn’t calm your excitement about the possibility that we are entering “global cooling”, I don’t know what will.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Addressing “Global Cooling”
Written by Zachary Shahan
Published on January 15th, 201013 CommentsPosted in About Climate, About Science, In Global
Give people a little winter weather and they cry out that global climate change is a myth.
Well, unfortunately, that is not the case.
Before we get too excited about the cold weather, here are a few things to look at, including the fact that the scientist who said we were entering “global cooling” doesn’t really say so at all.
» See also: Climate Change Sets Rural Livelihoods Off Course in Zimbabwe
» Get EcoLocalizer by RSS or sign up by email.
vote
nowBuzz up!2nd Hottest Year on Record, at End of Hottest Decade (So Far)
Throughout the year, as I was keeping up with the climate change news, I also saw several articles talking about how we were actually entering a cooling phase. As the year comes to a close, we can see clearly that it hasn’t started yet!
2009 was the hottest year on record in the southern hemisphere and tied for 2nd hottest ever globally. This is coming at the end of the hottest decade on record, too. As part of that, we did see record lows, but (in the US, at least), there were more than twice as many record highs.
And, despite recent cold weather in some places — much of the US and Europe — you can see in one of my recent articles on our sister site CleanTechnica that other areas of the world are seeing much warmer temperatures and the global average has been higher than normal.
This is all despite a huge drop in sunspots in recent years and despite the fact that it was only a medium-strength El Niño year. With a stronger El Niño expected in 2010, some (Hansen and the UK Met Office) are predicting that 2010 might be the new hottest year on record.
‘Global Cooling’ Scientist Sets the Record Straight
It is largely the work of Dr. Mojib Latif (one piece of work, actually) that has had headlines on some mainstream news sources saying that we are entering a period of global cooling. However, as Climate Progress reports, “Anyone who thought Latif, head of the Ocean Circulation and Climate Dynamics Division at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, was not a firm believer in human-caused global warming and the threat it poses, missed his 2009 book, Climate Change: The Point of No Return (The Sustainability Project). And they missed the NPR interview where he said, ‘If my name was not Mojib Latif, my name would be global warming. So I really believe in global warming.’”
In an effort to clear up the misunderstandings or misinterpretations of his work (which many media sites don’t seem too eager to clear up), Dr. Latif has this to say:
Given all the warnings about and plans to forestall global warming, people may be surprised to find, over the next several years that, over parts of the Northern hemisphere, summers are no warmer than before, maybe even a bit cooler–and that winters are as cold, or a bit colder, than they have been in the past couple of decades.
This is because the climate may go through a temporary halt in warming. It’s nothing unusual, just a natural fluctuation. It doesn’t mean that global warming is not still at work, or that we no longer need to worry about global temperatures rising by as much as 6°C by the end of the century — an unprecedented warming in the history of mankind if no measures are taken to cut global carbon dioxide emissions.
Furthermore, he writes that none of these findings are surprising to a climate scientists and they say nothing about the long term climate change or global warming trend:
The past record of globally averaged surface air temperature illustrates how gradual warming and short-term fluctuations can operate side by side. The temperature ups and downs superimposed on the 20th century warming trend reflect the natural variability. To some extent, we need to ignore these fluctuations, if we want to detect the human influence on climate.
Consider, for instance, the mid-century warming that was observed from 1930 to 1940. Had forecasters extrapolated into the future, they would have predicted far more warming than actually occurred. Likewise, a brief cooling trend, if used as the basis for a long-range forecast could erroneously support the idea of a rapidly approaching ice age.
Natural climate variations may be produced by the climate system itself. A well-known example is El Niño, a warming of the Equatorial Pacific occurring on average about every 4 years. The record El Niño 1997/1998 helped to make 1998 the warmest year to date. The last year happened to be a moderate El Niño year, one reason, for instance, for the weak hurricane season in 2009. Volcanic eruptions and fluctuations in solar output can also bring temporary climate change. The Philippine volcano Mt. Pinatubo caused a temperature drop in 1991. And an increase of the solar radiation reaching the earth contributed to the mid-century warming.
We predict the coming years may see two natural oscillations, the Pacific Decadal and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, swinging into their negative phase, leading to a cooling of sea surface temperatures in large parts of both the Pacific and Atlantic. A temporary halt in the global warming trend may be the consequence — nothing surprising to a climate scientist.
It is also possible that the current El Niño, combined with the long-term warming trend, takes us to record temperatures this year — again, nothing surprising to a climate scientist.
Climate Gate?
And if you thought the Hadley/CRU data that many predictions use were making global climate change seem bigger than it is likely to actually be, think again. More accurate data actually show even more disturbing trends.
If that doesn’t calm your excitement about the possibility that we are entering “global cooling”, I don’t know what will.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Re: Global Cooling Trend
Posted by:
Radiophile
()
Date: February 09, 2010 06:10PM
It is Climate Change. Stop using the term global warming - idiots are to quick to mi-understand that point.
Re: Global Cooling Trend
Posted by:
Wtf?
()
Date: February 09, 2010 06:23PM
Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is largely the work of Dr. Mojib Latif (one
> piece of work, actually) that has had headlines on
> some mainstream news sources saying that we are
> entering a period of global cooling. However, as
> Climate Progress reports, “Anyone who thought
> Latif, head of the Ocean Circulation and Climate
> Dynamics Division at the Leibniz Institute of
> Marine Sciences, was not a firm believer in
> human-caused global warming and the threat it
> poses, missed his 2009 book, Climate Change: The
> Point of No Return (The Sustainability Project).
> And they missed the NPR interview where he said,
> ‘If my name was not Mojib Latif, my name would be
> global warming. So I really believe in global
> warming.’”
"If my name was not Mojib Latif, my name would be global warming."
Is that some kind of a joke?
Seriously, that whole paragraph sounds like it's taken straight from the Onion.
Meanwhile, a few topical notes regarding the supposedly "settled" science of AGW:
1) Climategate - Leading AGW scientists at East Anglia's CRU exposed as having
fudged and/or destroyed data, refused FOIA requests, and written flawed computer
modeling code.
2) “Robust” and “peer reviewed” scientific research in the IPCC’s 2007 report is
now revealed to have relied upon such dubious evidence as an article in a mountain-
climbing magazine, a student dissertation using anecdotal evidence from mountain
guides, and the unvetted claims of environmental groups.
3) Glaciergate - The IPCC is forced to withdraw its claim that the Himalayan
glaciers would melt by 2035 because it was based on speculation rather than
scientific evidence. The retracted claim was made in the report that helped
secure the IPCC its Nobel Prize. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/20/lorne-gunter-first-climategate-now-glaciergate.aspx
4) Reefgate - It has been revealed that Greenpeace – an organization known more
for headline-grabbing publicity stunts than scientific analysis - was the SOLE
source for the claims of coral reef degradation in the 2007 IPCC report.
5) Rainforestgate - The IPCC report claimed that 40 percent of the South American
rainforest was endangered by global warming. This finding was discredited when it
was revealed it was based on a non-peer-reviewed study by non-scientists from the
World Wildlife Federation. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/dailypolitics/andrewneil/2010/01/the_dam_is_cracking.html
6) Judicial Watch has obtained internal documents from NASA’s Goddard Institute
for Space Studies which support the conclusion that NASA distorted data regarding
a supposed increase in US temperatures from 2000-2006.
7) The BBC reports that the most alarming forecasts of natural systems amplifying
the human-induced greenhouse effect may be too high, according to a new study in
the journal Nature.
8) New Zealand’s chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly
massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn’t there.
9) IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri exposed as financially benefiting from bogus
AGW research.
10) The UK’s chief scientific advisor, John Beddington, acknowledged some climate
scientists exaggerated the impact of global warming, and called for more honesty
in explaining to the public the inherent uncertainties of predictions based on
computer climate models, adding: “I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper
skepticism.”
http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/02/08/new-federal-climate-change-agency-forming/#IDComment55916448
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is largely the work of Dr. Mojib Latif (one
> piece of work, actually) that has had headlines on
> some mainstream news sources saying that we are
> entering a period of global cooling. However, as
> Climate Progress reports, “Anyone who thought
> Latif, head of the Ocean Circulation and Climate
> Dynamics Division at the Leibniz Institute of
> Marine Sciences, was not a firm believer in
> human-caused global warming and the threat it
> poses, missed his 2009 book, Climate Change: The
> Point of No Return (The Sustainability Project).
> And they missed the NPR interview where he said,
> ‘If my name was not Mojib Latif, my name would be
> global warming. So I really believe in global
> warming.’”
"If my name was not Mojib Latif, my name would be global warming."
Is that some kind of a joke?
Seriously, that whole paragraph sounds like it's taken straight from the Onion.
Meanwhile, a few topical notes regarding the supposedly "settled" science of AGW:
1) Climategate - Leading AGW scientists at East Anglia's CRU exposed as having
fudged and/or destroyed data, refused FOIA requests, and written flawed computer
modeling code.
2) “Robust” and “peer reviewed” scientific research in the IPCC’s 2007 report is
now revealed to have relied upon such dubious evidence as an article in a mountain-
climbing magazine, a student dissertation using anecdotal evidence from mountain
guides, and the unvetted claims of environmental groups.
3) Glaciergate - The IPCC is forced to withdraw its claim that the Himalayan
glaciers would melt by 2035 because it was based on speculation rather than
scientific evidence. The retracted claim was made in the report that helped
secure the IPCC its Nobel Prize. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/20/lorne-gunter-first-climategate-now-glaciergate.aspx
4) Reefgate - It has been revealed that Greenpeace – an organization known more
for headline-grabbing publicity stunts than scientific analysis - was the SOLE
source for the claims of coral reef degradation in the 2007 IPCC report.
5) Rainforestgate - The IPCC report claimed that 40 percent of the South American
rainforest was endangered by global warming. This finding was discredited when it
was revealed it was based on a non-peer-reviewed study by non-scientists from the
World Wildlife Federation. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/dailypolitics/andrewneil/2010/01/the_dam_is_cracking.html
6) Judicial Watch has obtained internal documents from NASA’s Goddard Institute
for Space Studies which support the conclusion that NASA distorted data regarding
a supposed increase in US temperatures from 2000-2006.
7) The BBC reports that the most alarming forecasts of natural systems amplifying
the human-induced greenhouse effect may be too high, according to a new study in
the journal Nature.
8) New Zealand’s chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly
massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn’t there.
9) IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri exposed as financially benefiting from bogus
AGW research.
10) The UK’s chief scientific advisor, John Beddington, acknowledged some climate
scientists exaggerated the impact of global warming, and called for more honesty
in explaining to the public the inherent uncertainties of predictions based on
computer climate models, adding: “I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper
skepticism.”
http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/02/08/new-federal-climate-change-agency-forming/#IDComment55916448
Re: Global Cooling Trend
Posted by:
Mojib Latif
()
Date: February 09, 2010 06:31PM
Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is Climate Change. Stop using the term global
> warming - idiots are to quick to mi-understand
> that point.
*slaps forehead*
You're absolutely right.
Climate change is real, it’s happening now.
The next cycle of climate change will be this coming spring.
There's a good chance that the weather may change... Maybe... Just saying, it's possible...
On second thought -- really, who can deny this climate changey stuff has been happening for a very, very long time??!!
Can't imagine it's going to subside anytime soon...!?
Finally, it doesn't have quite the same ring to it, but for the record:
If my name was not Mojib Latif, my name would be climate change.
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is Climate Change. Stop using the term global
> warming - idiots are to quick to mi-understand
> that point.
*slaps forehead*
You're absolutely right.
Climate change is real, it’s happening now.
The next cycle of climate change will be this coming spring.
There's a good chance that the weather may change... Maybe... Just saying, it's possible...
On second thought -- really, who can deny this climate changey stuff has been happening for a very, very long time??!!
Can't imagine it's going to subside anytime soon...!?
Finally, it doesn't have quite the same ring to it, but for the record:
If my name was not Mojib Latif, my name would be climate change.
Re: Global Cooling Trend
Posted by:
Gravis
()
Date: February 10, 2010 05:53AM
1) im all for global cooling
2) it's not due to people, so stfu about your stupid claims
3) all this "green technology" is just a bullshit gimmick.
4) does anyone else thing this is going to end up like the "red scare"?
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
2) it's not due to people, so stfu about your stupid claims
3) all this "green technology" is just a bullshit gimmick.
4) does anyone else thing this is going to end up like the "red scare"?
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
Re: Global Cooling Trend
Posted by:
WashingTone-Locian
()
Date: February 10, 2010 09:25AM
Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 4) does anyone else thing this is going to end up
> like the "red scare"?
While McCarthy over-played it, the fact is there were communist infiltrators in the government and they did share nuclear secrets with the Soviets. Unfortunately, McCarthy turned it into a ridiculous witch hunt that implicated innocent people while craftier types were able to go about their business unimpeded.
So, just because people like Gore over-state or misstate the impact of global climate change, it doesn't mean that there isn't some basis for the claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm
-------------------------------------------------------
> 4) does anyone else thing this is going to end up
> like the "red scare"?
While McCarthy over-played it, the fact is there were communist infiltrators in the government and they did share nuclear secrets with the Soviets. Unfortunately, McCarthy turned it into a ridiculous witch hunt that implicated innocent people while craftier types were able to go about their business unimpeded.
So, just because people like Gore over-state or misstate the impact of global climate change, it doesn't mean that there isn't some basis for the claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm
Re: Global Cooling Trend
Posted by:
Its pointless
()
Date: February 10, 2010 10:15AM
I don't believe that human activity has caused enough of a difference to lead to some catastrophic global meltdown. By the time it MIGHT, we will have moved beyond fossil fuels out of necessity. This shit is pointless.
Re: Global Cooling Trend
Posted by:
Numbers
()
Date: February 10, 2010 10:30AM
Forget Al Gore and the whole global warming/ climate change thing. These titles have done more to screw up pollution control than 10 million cows farting at once. It's perfectly understandable to doubt that the climate is changing due entirely to human activity. I certainly have my doubts about it.
But one thing I don't doubt, is that humans are polluting the air, sea and land and I don't have a problem with correcting this and neither should anyone else.
We all hate pollution, don't we?
We all want cleaner air and drinkable water, don't we?
Even Al Gore would have to admit now that referring to pollution as "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" was a colossal mistake. If not, he should call for the best scientists in the field to have a worldwide press conference to present their case to EVERYONE on Earth in a way we can all understand. If they have some undeniable proof that the cause is man made than we all need to hear it and be convinced of it. Anything less is unacceptable.
In the meantime, I have no problem with alternative sources of energy and I'm all for cleaner air and water, aren't you?
But one thing I don't doubt, is that humans are polluting the air, sea and land and I don't have a problem with correcting this and neither should anyone else.
We all hate pollution, don't we?
We all want cleaner air and drinkable water, don't we?
Even Al Gore would have to admit now that referring to pollution as "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" was a colossal mistake. If not, he should call for the best scientists in the field to have a worldwide press conference to present their case to EVERYONE on Earth in a way we can all understand. If they have some undeniable proof that the cause is man made than we all need to hear it and be convinced of it. Anything less is unacceptable.
In the meantime, I have no problem with alternative sources of energy and I'm all for cleaner air and water, aren't you?
Re: Global Cooling Trend
Posted by:
Pancks(1)
()
Date: February 10, 2010 10:41AM
I was right! The OP really did bring out the mouth-breathing, chin-drooling libs in all their righteous ignorant indignation! It's always interesting to hear from the extra-chromosome set!
Re: Global Cooling Trend
Posted by:
ThePackLeader
()
Date: February 10, 2010 08:07PM
Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is Climate Change. Stop using the term global
> warming - idiots are to quick to mi-understand
> that point.
I hope that you are being facetious.
==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is Climate Change. Stop using the term global
> warming - idiots are to quick to mi-understand
> that point.
I hope that you are being facetious.
==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).
Re: Global Cooling Trend
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: February 10, 2010 09:58PM
Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1) im all for global cooling
> 2) it's not due to people, so stfu about your
> stupid claims
> 3) all this "green technology" is just a bullshit
> gimmick.
> 4) does anyone else thing this is going to end up
> like the "red scare"?
A walking talking idiot! He wouldve led the charge at the time against the red scare. Just as he leads the charge against the muslim world...calls our soldiers lives expendable.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1) im all for global cooling
> 2) it's not due to people, so stfu about your
> stupid claims
> 3) all this "green technology" is just a bullshit
> gimmick.
> 4) does anyone else thing this is going to end up
> like the "red scare"?
A walking talking idiot! He wouldve led the charge at the time against the red scare. Just as he leads the charge against the muslim world...calls our soldiers lives expendable.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Re: Global Cooling Trend
Posted by:
Chill, baby, chill
()
Date: February 10, 2010 11:44PM
Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But one thing I don't doubt, is that humans are
> polluting the air, sea and land and I don't have a
> problem with correcting this and neither should
> anyone else.
> We all hate pollution, don't we?
> We all want cleaner air and drinkable water, don't
> we?
No disagreement on this front, but...
> Even Al Gore would have to admit now that
> referring to pollution as "Global Warming" or
> "Climate Change" was a colossal mistake.
No, I really don't think so. I'm not aware that he's backed off his position one iota.
> If they have some
> undeniable proof that the cause is man made than
> we all need to hear it and be convinced of it.
> Anything less is unacceptable.
The science is settled, per the AGW establishment.
The debate is over.
If you object, you're a "denier" -- in the same class as the "birthers," or flat-earthers.
> In the meantime, I have no problem with
> alternative sources of energy and I'm all for
> cleaner air and water, aren't you?
I agree on both fronts.
The problem is the massive drive to impose hugely expensive changes to the global economy based on a THEORY of AGW that has NOT been PROVEN.
In fact, recent studies suggest that Climate Change is driven mainly by sun spot activities.
There is not ONE scientific paper which PROVES that the miniscule amount of CO2 in the air emitted or created by humankind has any noticeable effect on climate.
The earth has been either stable or cooling for the past 12 years, while human CO2 emissions have continued to RISE.
Increases in CO2 levels ALWAYS FOLLOW Global Warming, they NEVER PRECEDE it.
CO2 is not a pollutant... it is a VITAL part of the cycle of life... it feeds plants, plants feeds humans and animals.....
MORE CO2 equals more plants & more food: better for life on earth.
LESS CO2 equals less plants & less food: man and animals starve.
http://current.com/items/91513098_youtube-al-gore-sued-by-over-30-000-scientists-for-global-warming-fraud.htm#91521677
-------------------------------------------------------
> But one thing I don't doubt, is that humans are
> polluting the air, sea and land and I don't have a
> problem with correcting this and neither should
> anyone else.
> We all hate pollution, don't we?
> We all want cleaner air and drinkable water, don't
> we?
No disagreement on this front, but...
> Even Al Gore would have to admit now that
> referring to pollution as "Global Warming" or
> "Climate Change" was a colossal mistake.
No, I really don't think so. I'm not aware that he's backed off his position one iota.
> If they have some
> undeniable proof that the cause is man made than
> we all need to hear it and be convinced of it.
> Anything less is unacceptable.
The science is settled, per the AGW establishment.
The debate is over.
If you object, you're a "denier" -- in the same class as the "birthers," or flat-earthers.
> In the meantime, I have no problem with
> alternative sources of energy and I'm all for
> cleaner air and water, aren't you?
I agree on both fronts.
The problem is the massive drive to impose hugely expensive changes to the global economy based on a THEORY of AGW that has NOT been PROVEN.
In fact, recent studies suggest that Climate Change is driven mainly by sun spot activities.
Pay no attention to that burning ball of gas in the sky — it’s just the only thing that prevents the planet from being a lifeless ball of ice engulfed in darkness. Never mind that sunspot activity doubled during the 20th century, when the bulk of global warming has taken place.
What does it say that the modeling that guaranteed disastrous increases in global temperatures never predicted the halt in planetary warming since the late 1990s? (MIT’s Richard Lindzen says that “there has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995.”) What does it say that the modelers have only just now discovered how sunspots make the Earth warmer?
I don’t know what it tells you, but it tells me that maybe we should study a bit more before we spend billions to “solve” a problem we don’t understand so well. http://tinyurl.com/Radiophile
There is not ONE scientific paper which PROVES that the miniscule amount of CO2 in the air emitted or created by humankind has any noticeable effect on climate.
The earth has been either stable or cooling for the past 12 years, while human CO2 emissions have continued to RISE.
Increases in CO2 levels ALWAYS FOLLOW Global Warming, they NEVER PRECEDE it.
CO2 is not a pollutant... it is a VITAL part of the cycle of life... it feeds plants, plants feeds humans and animals.....
MORE CO2 equals more plants & more food: better for life on earth.
LESS CO2 equals less plants & less food: man and animals starve.
http://current.com/items/91513098_youtube-al-gore-sued-by-over-30-000-scientists-for-global-warming-fraud.htm#91521677
Re: Global Cooling Trend
Posted by:
hi
()
Date: February 11, 2010 12:10AM
You wingnuts are devoid of all rational thought.
Re: Global Cooling Trend
Posted by:
ThePackLeader
()
Date: February 11, 2010 02:43AM
WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > 4) does anyone else thing this is going to end
> up
> > like the "red scare"?
>
>
> While McCarthy over-played it, the fact is there
> were communist infiltrators in the government and
> they did share nuclear secrets with the Soviets.
> Unfortunately, McCarthy turned it into a
> ridiculous witch hunt that implicated innocent
> people while craftier types were able to go about
> their business unimpeded.
>
> So, just because people like Gore over-state or
> misstate the impact of global climate change, it
> doesn't mean that there isn't some basis for the
> claims.
The problem however, is that the climate is ALWAYS changing, and by suddenly claiming that mankind is causing it, how can anything be refuted? If it cools, it's mankind, if it warms, it's mankind. So you see where I'm going with this? There is no discernable pattern based upon mankind's influence on our overall climate. As a matter of fact, most of the current trends are already based in pre-established and precisely recorded patterns of nature. If there is any human influence upon our climate, it is so utterly negligible that we have yet to truly gain any actual knowledge about it.
==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > 4) does anyone else thing this is going to end
> up
> > like the "red scare"?
>
>
> While McCarthy over-played it, the fact is there
> were communist infiltrators in the government and
> they did share nuclear secrets with the Soviets.
> Unfortunately, McCarthy turned it into a
> ridiculous witch hunt that implicated innocent
> people while craftier types were able to go about
> their business unimpeded.
>
> So, just because people like Gore over-state or
> misstate the impact of global climate change, it
> doesn't mean that there isn't some basis for the
> claims.
The problem however, is that the climate is ALWAYS changing, and by suddenly claiming that mankind is causing it, how can anything be refuted? If it cools, it's mankind, if it warms, it's mankind. So you see where I'm going with this? There is no discernable pattern based upon mankind's influence on our overall climate. As a matter of fact, most of the current trends are already based in pre-established and precisely recorded patterns of nature. If there is any human influence upon our climate, it is so utterly negligible that we have yet to truly gain any actual knowledge about it.
==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).
Re: Global Cooling Trend
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: February 11, 2010 08:34AM
Yeah, wasn't cooling based on the fact that we had so much pollution that it was not allowing enough sunlight to reach the earth and warm it? I believe I remember that argument from the distant past when they were discussing the imminent ice age. Back when those ads with the American Indian crying as he watched people drive by and throw trash on the side of the road were all the rage.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Re: Global Cooling Trend
Posted by:
WashingTone-Locian
()
Date: February 11, 2010 09:26AM
Humans have an impact on the climate the same way we have an impact on the overall environment. How the climate and environment respond to that impact over the long-term is the real unknown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm
Re: Global Cooling Trend
Posted by:
Melvin
()
Date: February 11, 2010 10:55AM
• The Himalayan glaciers were supposed to disappear as soon as 2035. The United Nations didn't base this hysteria on an academic study. Instead, it relied on a news story that interviewed a single Indian glaciologist in 1999. Syed Hasnain, the glaciologist in question, says he was misquoted and provided no date to the reporter. The doomsday account was simply made up, and the United Nations never bothered to confirm the claim.
• Because of purported global warming, the world supposedly "suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s." The U.N. cited one unpublished study to prove this. When the research eventually was published in 2008 after the IPCC report was released, the authors backpedaled: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses."
• Up to 40 percent of the Amazon rain forest was said to be at risk because of rising global temperatures. Again, the U.N. didn't cite any academic studies but merely one non-refereed report authored by two non-scientists, one of whom worked for the World Wildlife Fund, an activist organization.
• The U.N. dramatically claimed that 55 percent of the Netherlands is below sea level when the accurate portion is 26 percent.
• Because of purported global warming, the world supposedly "suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s." The U.N. cited one unpublished study to prove this. When the research eventually was published in 2008 after the IPCC report was released, the authors backpedaled: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses."
• Up to 40 percent of the Amazon rain forest was said to be at risk because of rising global temperatures. Again, the U.N. didn't cite any academic studies but merely one non-refereed report authored by two non-scientists, one of whom worked for the World Wildlife Fund, an activist organization.
• The U.N. dramatically claimed that 55 percent of the Netherlands is below sea level when the accurate portion is 26 percent.
Re: Global Cooling Trend
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: February 11, 2010 10:59AM
Chill, baby, chill Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Numbers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > But one thing I don't doubt, is that humans are
> > polluting the air, sea and land and I don't have
> a
> > problem with correcting this and neither should
> > anyone else.
> > We all hate pollution, don't we?
> > We all want cleaner air and drinkable water,
> don't
> > we?
>
> No disagreement on this front, but...
>
>
> > Even Al Gore would have to admit now that
> > referring to pollution as "Global Warming" or
> > "Climate Change" was a colossal mistake.
>
> No, I really don't think so. I'm not aware that
> he's backed off his position one iota.
>
>
> > If they have some
> > undeniable proof that the cause is man made
> than
> > we all need to hear it and be convinced of it.
> > Anything less is unacceptable.
>
> The science is settled, per the AGW establishment.
>
>
> The debate is over.
>
> If you object, you're a "denier" -- in the same
> class as the "birthers," or flat-earthers.
>
>
> > In the meantime, I have no problem with
> > alternative sources of energy and I'm all for
> > cleaner air and water, aren't you?
>
> I agree on both fronts.
>
> The problem is the massive drive to impose hugely
> expensive changes to the global economy based on a
> THEORY of AGW that has NOT been PROVEN.
>
> In fact, recent studies suggest that Climate
> Change is driven mainly by sun spot activities.
>
> Pay no attention to that burning ball of gas in
> the sky — it’s just the only thing that prevents
> the planet from being a lifeless ball of ice
> engulfed in darkness. Never mind that sunspot
> activity doubled during the 20th century, when the
> bulk of global warming has taken place.
>
> What does it say that the modeling that guaranteed
> disastrous increases in global temperatures never
> predicted the halt in planetary warming since the
> late 1990s? (MIT’s Richard Lindzen says that
> “there has been no warming since 1997 and no
> statistically significant warming since 1995.”)
> What does it say that the modelers have only just
> now discovered how sunspots make the Earth
> warmer?
>
> I don’t know what it tells you, but it tells me
> that maybe we should study a bit more before we
> spend billions to “solve” a problem we don’t
> understand so well. http://tinyurl.com/Radiophile
>
> There is not ONE scientific paper which PROVES
> that the miniscule amount of CO2 in the air
> emitted or created by humankind has any noticeable
> effect on climate.
>
> The earth has been either stable or cooling for
> the past 12 years, while human CO2 emissions have
> continued to RISE.
>
> Increases in CO2 levels ALWAYS FOLLOW Global
> Warming, they NEVER PRECEDE it.
>
> CO2 is not a pollutant... it is a VITAL part of
> the cycle of life... it feeds plants, plants feeds
> humans and animals.....
>
> MORE CO2 equals more plants & more food: better
> for life on earth.
>
> LESS CO2 equals less plants & less food: man and
> animals starve.
>
> http://current.com/items/91513098_youtube-al-gore-
> sued-by-over-30-000-scientists-for-global-warming-
> fraud.htm#91521677
Thank you...thank you...thank you!
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Numbers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > But one thing I don't doubt, is that humans are
> > polluting the air, sea and land and I don't have
> a
> > problem with correcting this and neither should
> > anyone else.
> > We all hate pollution, don't we?
> > We all want cleaner air and drinkable water,
> don't
> > we?
>
> No disagreement on this front, but...
>
>
> > Even Al Gore would have to admit now that
> > referring to pollution as "Global Warming" or
> > "Climate Change" was a colossal mistake.
>
> No, I really don't think so. I'm not aware that
> he's backed off his position one iota.
>
>
> > If they have some
> > undeniable proof that the cause is man made
> than
> > we all need to hear it and be convinced of it.
> > Anything less is unacceptable.
>
> The science is settled, per the AGW establishment.
>
>
> The debate is over.
>
> If you object, you're a "denier" -- in the same
> class as the "birthers," or flat-earthers.
>
>
> > In the meantime, I have no problem with
> > alternative sources of energy and I'm all for
> > cleaner air and water, aren't you?
>
> I agree on both fronts.
>
> The problem is the massive drive to impose hugely
> expensive changes to the global economy based on a
> THEORY of AGW that has NOT been PROVEN.
>
> In fact, recent studies suggest that Climate
> Change is driven mainly by sun spot activities.
>
> Pay no attention to that burning ball of gas in
> the sky — it’s just the only thing that prevents
> the planet from being a lifeless ball of ice
> engulfed in darkness. Never mind that sunspot
> activity doubled during the 20th century, when the
> bulk of global warming has taken place.
>
> What does it say that the modeling that guaranteed
> disastrous increases in global temperatures never
> predicted the halt in planetary warming since the
> late 1990s? (MIT’s Richard Lindzen says that
> “there has been no warming since 1997 and no
> statistically significant warming since 1995.”)
> What does it say that the modelers have only just
> now discovered how sunspots make the Earth
> warmer?
>
> I don’t know what it tells you, but it tells me
> that maybe we should study a bit more before we
> spend billions to “solve” a problem we don’t
> understand so well. http://tinyurl.com/Radiophile
>
> There is not ONE scientific paper which PROVES
> that the miniscule amount of CO2 in the air
> emitted or created by humankind has any noticeable
> effect on climate.
>
> The earth has been either stable or cooling for
> the past 12 years, while human CO2 emissions have
> continued to RISE.
>
> Increases in CO2 levels ALWAYS FOLLOW Global
> Warming, they NEVER PRECEDE it.
>
> CO2 is not a pollutant... it is a VITAL part of
> the cycle of life... it feeds plants, plants feeds
> humans and animals.....
>
> MORE CO2 equals more plants & more food: better
> for life on earth.
>
> LESS CO2 equals less plants & less food: man and
> animals starve.
>
> http://current.com/items/91513098_youtube-al-gore-
> sued-by-over-30-000-scientists-for-global-warming-
> fraud.htm#91521677
Thank you...thank you...thank you!
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Re: Global Cooling Trend
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: February 11, 2010 11:02AM
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, wasn't cooling based on the fact that we had
> so much pollution that it was not allowing enough
> sunlight to reach the earth and warm it? I believe
> I remember that argument from the distant past
> when they were discussing the imminent ice age.
> Back when those ads with the American Indian
> crying as he watched people drive by and throw
> trash on the side of the road were all the rage.
What this idiot is undoubtedly refering to is the Ozone layer depletion of a few years ago. That was Al Gore's first entry into the environment...well, guess what...the chemicals causing ozone depletion were removed/limited/controlled...and now that isnt a big a problem as it once was!
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, wasn't cooling based on the fact that we had
> so much pollution that it was not allowing enough
> sunlight to reach the earth and warm it? I believe
> I remember that argument from the distant past
> when they were discussing the imminent ice age.
> Back when those ads with the American Indian
> crying as he watched people drive by and throw
> trash on the side of the road were all the rage.
What this idiot is undoubtedly refering to is the Ozone layer depletion of a few years ago. That was Al Gore's first entry into the environment...well, guess what...the chemicals causing ozone depletion were removed/limited/controlled...and now that isnt a big a problem as it once was!
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Re: Global Cooling Trend
Posted by:
Old Man Winter
()
Date: February 11, 2010 11:40AM
This is the problem with "Climate Change."
In the 1970s, we were told that too much pollution would cause the ozone layer to get too thick and block out the rays of the Sun, causing the Earth to cool, and we were all going to die from "Global Cooling."
In the 1980s, we were told that they were wrong, and that the problem was certain kinds of pollution (CFCs) were making the ozone layer too thin and that we were actually going to fry from too much sunlight.
In the 1990s, they changed their tune again, and this time they were saying that oops, they were right the first time, too much pollution was getting into the ozone (this time C02), but it wasn't going to block out the Sun, it was actually going to trap heat on Earth, and we were all going to die from "Global Warming."
In the 2000s, when the Earth started to cool again (despite the best early efforts of the Warmists to hide this), we were told that the rampant warming had lead to a different problem, and that we were all going to die from "Climate Change."
When the science has been wrong all along, why should we believe them this time? We shouldn't of course. This is nonsense cooked up by pseudoscientists who need their grants for research, and Wall Street bankers who can't wait to get their fingers into carbon credit trading.
"Climate Change" is a nonsense term without any basis in science. It is not a theory that was brought about using the scientific method. As any scientist with an ounce of integrity can tell you, the scientific method requires that a theory be falsifiable. That doesn't mean that it can be proven false, just that it can be proven false using some method if it is actually false. No such method of disproving "Climate Change" exists. Abnormally warm weather? "Climate Change." Abnormally cold weather? "Climate Change." Perfectly normal weather? Just more evidence of "Climate Change." Point out that the world was warmer in the past, or that the climate is constantly changing? They'll find a way to delete it from their models (like they did with the Medieval Warm Period). There's no way to prove "Climate Change" because there's nothing to fight against. It's like trying to debate a crazy person who says they're God.
In the 1970s, we were told that too much pollution would cause the ozone layer to get too thick and block out the rays of the Sun, causing the Earth to cool, and we were all going to die from "Global Cooling."
In the 1980s, we were told that they were wrong, and that the problem was certain kinds of pollution (CFCs) were making the ozone layer too thin and that we were actually going to fry from too much sunlight.
In the 1990s, they changed their tune again, and this time they were saying that oops, they were right the first time, too much pollution was getting into the ozone (this time C02), but it wasn't going to block out the Sun, it was actually going to trap heat on Earth, and we were all going to die from "Global Warming."
In the 2000s, when the Earth started to cool again (despite the best early efforts of the Warmists to hide this), we were told that the rampant warming had lead to a different problem, and that we were all going to die from "Climate Change."
When the science has been wrong all along, why should we believe them this time? We shouldn't of course. This is nonsense cooked up by pseudoscientists who need their grants for research, and Wall Street bankers who can't wait to get their fingers into carbon credit trading.
"Climate Change" is a nonsense term without any basis in science. It is not a theory that was brought about using the scientific method. As any scientist with an ounce of integrity can tell you, the scientific method requires that a theory be falsifiable. That doesn't mean that it can be proven false, just that it can be proven false using some method if it is actually false. No such method of disproving "Climate Change" exists. Abnormally warm weather? "Climate Change." Abnormally cold weather? "Climate Change." Perfectly normal weather? Just more evidence of "Climate Change." Point out that the world was warmer in the past, or that the climate is constantly changing? They'll find a way to delete it from their models (like they did with the Medieval Warm Period). There's no way to prove "Climate Change" because there's nothing to fight against. It's like trying to debate a crazy person who says they're God.
Re: Global Cooling Trend
Posted by:
Gravis
()
Date: February 11, 2010 05:43PM
WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, just because people like Gore over-state or
> misstate the impact of global climate change, it
> doesn't mean that there isn't some basis for the
> claims.
i agree because the climate is always fluctuating. the climate is, has and always will be changing because it's a natural process of the earth. however, to say that humans are responsible is the witch hunt end of the matter.
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, just because people like Gore over-state or
> misstate the impact of global climate change, it
> doesn't mean that there isn't some basis for the
> claims.
i agree because the climate is always fluctuating. the climate is, has and always will be changing because it's a natural process of the earth. however, to say that humans are responsible is the witch hunt end of the matter.
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."