Author
|
Topic: Hell Freezing Over----Global Warming Blamed
|
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 5659 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted January 29, 2012 02:25 PM
Priests of the Man Made Global Warming Religion are crying in their beers! The rest of us always knew their Man Made Global Warming obsession was a hoax, a scam and the biggest crock of crap to ever come down the pike! Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years By David Rose 29th January 2012 The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years. The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century. Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997. A painting, dated 1684, by Abraham Hondius depicts one of many frost fairs on the River Thames during the mini ice age Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food. Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak. We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century. Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still. According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C. However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid. Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’ These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts. ‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’ He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming. CO2 levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998. So far there is no sign of any of this happening. But yesterday a Met Office spokesman insisted its models were still valid. ‘The ten-year projection remains groundbreaking science. The period for the original projection is not over yet,’ he said. Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’. ‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said. He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand. ‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’. She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. ‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years . Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997. The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century. ‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’ Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific. ‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html IP: Logged |
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 5659 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted January 29, 2012 11:36 PM
Randall, did you help my last post on this thread along?I had to divide the last post into 2 posts because it wouldn't post up. I also used "con't" at the bottom of the first section and "con't" at the top of the second section. Now, it's all together..and the "con'ts have disappeared! IP: Logged |
Randall Webmaster Posts: 20987 From: Saturn next to Charmainec Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted January 29, 2012 11:49 PM
Nope. It must have been the friendly neighborhood LL gremlin.IP: Logged |
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 5659 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted January 30, 2012 07:26 AM
Good Grenlin! IP: Logged |
Randall Webmaster Posts: 20987 From: Saturn next to Charmainec Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 18, 2012 09:30 PM
Yep, since the sun is the real provider of warmth on the planet, we better buckle up for global cooling in 2022. Kind of makes me wish global warming is true; we will need it.IP: Logged |
AcousticGod Knowflake Posts: 6549 From: Pleasanton, CA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 19, 2012 11:30 AM
Yeah right. You wish global warming were true, and you weren't just spamming GU with unscientific nonsense about the climate.IP: Logged |
Ami Anne Moderator Posts: 35633 From: Pluto/house next to NickiG Registered: Sep 2010
|
posted July 19, 2012 11:34 AM
quote: Originally posted by AcousticGod: Yeah right. You wish global warming were true, and you weren't just spamming GU with unscientific nonsense about the climate.
See, this is what I mean about you, AG. You get all sorts of GOOD info and you reject it. I offered a present to you for listening to Rush, and you reject it. You are closed minded.
------------------ Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal http://www.mychristianpsychic.com/
IP: Logged |
Randall Webmaster Posts: 20987 From: Saturn next to Charmainec Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 19, 2012 12:32 PM
AG only believes scientific data if it's from the few scientists of the NOAA or IPCC.------------------ "Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca Clark IP: Logged |
AcousticGod Knowflake Posts: 6549 From: Pleasanton, CA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 19, 2012 01:02 PM
No Ami, you misunderstand as usual.Your offer isn't legitimate. Rush is NOT and has never been a source of good information. There is no intellectual benefit from listening to him. That's not a close-minded view. That's a RATIONAL view. If you were to survey all the brightest minds in the world, I don't think you'd find a SINGLE one that would say that they listen to Rush. Why? Because there's no benefit. Second, this isn't "good" information. We can all rest assured that it's not good information, because the scientific community doesn't embrace it. quote: AG only believes scientific data if it's from the few scientists of the NOAA or IPCC.
You continue making claims you couldn't hope to back up. Who says that there are few scientists involved at the NOAA or the IPCC, or any other entity that studies the climate? Only a person attempting to marginalize the scientific concensus. It's a hack job, and you're not capable of making an impact because the legitimacy is on the other side of the equation. Anyone studying this topic from a place of objectivity is going to go to the obvious sources of information over Conservative blogs. It's sensible. I can't fathom why you can't understand that. IP: Logged |
Randall Webmaster Posts: 20987 From: Saturn next to Charmainec Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 19, 2012 01:05 PM
I can't fathom how you don't understand how money fuels this myth and how they want to protect their gravy train; nor can I fathom how you can't see that the IPCC has political reasons to perpetuate this farce. But hey, we can agree to disagree. That's why we have two main parties. Your opinion on this matter doesn't upset me. Why should mine upset you?------------------ "Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca Clark IP: Logged |
AcousticGod Knowflake Posts: 6549 From: Pleasanton, CA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 19, 2012 01:38 PM
It's quite easy, Randall. These entities that came up with and confirm manmade global warming have existed and persisted in these beliefs even in times of having a government hostile to their notions. It would seem that these entities would have a difficult time receiving funding during combative administrations if they weren't doing something of value and merit.Also, I've already pointed out that legitimate scientists love to debate this stuff. If there were credible voices within the community that disagreed with good reason, they would surely gain momentum. Instead, we get new articles every day regarding the consequences of the warming that has happened. Even if the warming weren't to be manmade, it sure seems like Conservatives would love to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and also disregard the effects of the measured warming. You have tunnel-vision thinking that this is some sort of leftist conspiracy. It's not. The same sh!t is happening in Australia: Scientists reject LNP school move A BODY representing nearly 70,000 Australian scientists has criticised a Queensland Liberal National Party resolution calling for mainstream climate science to be cut from the state's school curriculum. LNP delegates at the party's state conference passed a motion yesterday calling on Education Minister John-Paul Langbroek to stop the teaching of ''environmental propaganda material, in particular post-normal science about climate change''. The mover of the motion, Noosa LNP member Richard Pearson, attacked ''false prophets who would poison the minds of our children in our schools''. ''Few people understand that the so-called science of climate change is really what can be defined as post-normal science,'' he said, arguing it went beyond traditional understanding of science. The motion was passed with overwhelming support. Advertisement Anna-Maria Arabia, chief executive of Science & Technology Australia, called the resolution ''extremely harmful''. The central principles of climate science - including that man-made greenhouse gases trap heat in the lower atmosphere and have warmed the planet - were backed by all the world's major scientific academies. http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/scientists-reject-lnp-school-move-20120713-221or.html All the world's major academies...the same as I've been telling you. This is not something that's rigged. That article is dated July 14, 2012 by the way. It's as recent as anything. I would rather disagree to disagree, or agree to agree. There is a conspiracy going on here. It's just undetermined who understands it, and who doesn't. The sensible person will always side with caution, and the caution here is that the globe is warming. Are you going to deal with it, or are you going to come up with every excuse under heaven to procrastinate on it? IP: Logged |
Randall Webmaster Posts: 20987 From: Saturn next to Charmainec Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 19, 2012 02:36 PM
IF it's warming, it has nothing to do with man, and it's certainly nothing to be feared. This hysteria over a projected one degree in 100 years is nonsensical. It's irrational. It's all about money. The computer models have failed--both with temperature rises and sea levels. CO2 is not a pollutant, and we should desire lush green climates. Whether it rises or falls, it is outside of our hands. But rising a degree is perfectly normal coming out of a little ice age and is exactly what the earth has been doing long before we existed. IP: Logged |
Randall Webmaster Posts: 20987 From: Saturn next to Charmainec Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 19, 2012 02:42 PM
The earth is going to go on doing what it does--just as it has done since the beginning of its creation, and man can't do a thing about it. It's all cyclical. It's no threat. Just like the ozone hoax was no threat. Caution is very dangerous when it costs trillions that could be spent on something worthwhile. Follow the money. IP: Logged |
AcousticGod Knowflake Posts: 6549 From: Pleasanton, CA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 19, 2012 04:15 PM
Randall, if you were ever wise enough to speak with authority on climate science, you would be infiltrating mainstream sources like NASA or the NOAA, and disproving manmade global warming from the inside. As you're not, your comments are rather moot. There's literally nothing we can take from them. Our own National Academy of Scientists put experts that disagree with anthropogenic climate change at 3% at best. You are one of the three percent.You love to go on about how it's a money scheme. Most money schemes are lauded by Conservatives. There's nothing a Conservative loves more than a money scheme. By that rationale, if it actually were a money scheme we'd see all kinds of Conservatives on board with it. It's really NOT a money scheme, though, and so we don't. We see partisan nonsense that manmade global warming is some insidious conspiracy. The scientific community has taken you skeptics far more seriously than they should, and they've published about it the whole way. You just need to open your eyes. Re-learn Occam's razor. IP: Logged |
Randall Webmaster Posts: 20987 From: Saturn next to Charmainec Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 19, 2012 07:56 PM
It's irrational to even think humanity can affect global climate one iota. It's even further irrational to think a one percent increase in temp in 100 years is important (by their own admission). Err on the side of caution all you want, while the green movement gets rich, and while the right keeps this monstrosity in check. IP: Logged |
AcousticGod Knowflake Posts: 6549 From: Pleasanton, CA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 19, 2012 10:28 PM
You've used this line of reasoning before. There is nothing about your statement that induces me to believe you are correct. It's certainly not inherently irrational to conceive that seven billion people that have MASSIVE impacts on their environments could also be affecting their climate. Getting hung up on one percent isn't some saving grace. That's the same as citing Inhofe. Red herring as far as I'm concerned. The framing is designed to make it appear to be insignificant. The measured effects of climate change/global warming show far more ramifications. This argument is like saying, "I just spent $1,000," and coming to learn that the money was the entire retirement account for 50 of the poorest people in the world. It only seems like a small amount in the context of it being a small amount. It doesn't seem like a small amount in the context of the bigger ramifications.
IP: Logged |
Randall Webmaster Posts: 20987 From: Saturn next to Charmainec Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 20, 2012 01:03 AM
But I'm not trying to convince you. One volcanic eruption of medium proportion releases more CO2 than the entire existence of mankind. Mankind truly has no impact if CO2 is the culprit. One degree is laughable. Let's spend billions to make people rich and save the world from bursting into flames over 7/10 of a degree a century from now. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? There is no crisis. IP: Logged |
AcousticGod Knowflake Posts: 6549 From: Pleasanton, CA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 20, 2012 12:06 PM
You are trying to convince me. Hence the spamming. Hence the retorts. You're still wrong about the one degree, and you're further wrong about volcanos. http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php Look up stuff at legitimate sites, and you'll find all the answers to your questions. IP: Logged |
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 5659 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 27, 2012 08:32 AM
hahaha, before the global warming religionists were touting man made global warming to enrich themselves, enhance their tattered scientific careers and get control over US energy production and use; they were touting GLOBAL COOLING...a new Ice Age...for the very same reasons. Oh, and I'm still waiting for your list of 31,000 American scientists, liberally sprinkled with PhDs who claim man made global warming is the real deal. Yep, I'm still waiting acoustic and you're still ducking, bobbing, weaving and evading acoustic because there's a mere handful of scientists you could quote..and their scientific careers are in tatters due to their colossal fraud, misrepresentations and forged data. But, I'll ask you again acoustic. Where is your list? I've already posted my list of 31,000 US scientists who say man made global warming is a crock of crap.
IP: Logged |
AcousticGod Knowflake Posts: 6549 From: Pleasanton, CA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 27, 2012 10:37 AM
And I've already cited the bogus nature of your list as well as the fact that there is a consensus amongst actual climate scientists.Anyone can research the consensus and find the truth...except for you apparently. IP: Logged |
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 5659 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 29, 2012 11:02 AM
You haven't "cited" a damned thing acoustic. You've made "unfounded" allegations but I published the list of those 31,000 US scientists who say man made global warming is a crock of crap.On the other hand, you acoustic have failed to come up with a similar list of those who back you hairbrained crackpot theory. Where's your list acoustic? Just post it right here acoustic and let everyone get a good look at the fraudsters, con artists and non scientists who support your crackpot theory of man made global warming. IP: Logged |
AcousticGod Knowflake Posts: 6549 From: Pleasanton, CA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 30, 2012 12:47 PM
How many years have you been attempting this tactic on this argument? I've addressed the bogus nature of your list several times. Don't try to deny it. You know we've gone over this. Beyond that, multiple studies have been done to prove the consensus, NONE of which you've ever posted. There was Oreskes 2004. Then there was Doran and Anderegg separately in 2010. THEN...someone came out with an answer to your bogus poll, and created their own called the Vision Prize. Every one of these studies have found the consensus to back manmade global warming, and the more the person is linked to the actual science, the more likely that they side with the consensus. Every one of these entities endorse the manmade global warming concept: American Association for the Advancement of Science American Astronomical Society American Chemical Society American Geophysical Union American Institute of Physics American Meteorological Society American Physical Society Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO British Antarctic Survey Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Environmental Protection Agency European Federation of Geologists European Geosciences Union European Physical Society Federation of American Scientists Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies Geological Society of America Geological Society of Australia International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics National Center for Atmospheric Research National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Royal Meteorological Society Royal Society of the UK Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil) Royal Society of Canada Chinese Academy of Sciences Academie des Sciences (France) Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany) Indian National Science Academy Accademia dei Lincei (Italy) Science Council of Japan Academia Mexicana de Ciencias (Mexico) Russian Academy of Sciences Academy of Science of South Africa Royal Society (United Kingdom) National Academy of Sciences (USA) African Academy of Sciences Cameroon Academy of Sciences Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences Kenya National Academy of Sciences Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences Nigerian Academy of Sciences l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal Uganda National Academy of Sciences Academy of Science of South Africa Tanzania Academy of Sciences Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences Zambia Academy of Sciences Sudan Academy of Sciences Australian Academy of Science Royal Society of New Zealand Polish Academy of Sciences So...as you can see, I STILL don't buy your list. The actual consensus is clear, and it's clearly not in your camp. IP: Logged |
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 5659 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 30, 2012 02:23 PM
Yes, I see your list of man made global warming religious institutions..run by bureaucrats acoustic. But where's the list of SCIENTISTS I asked you for?Did you really think you were going to get away with substituting a list of man made global warming churches run by stumblebum bureaucrats for real SCIENTISTS? No such luck acoustic! IP: Logged |
AcousticGod Knowflake Posts: 6549 From: Pleasanton, CA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 30, 2012 03:34 PM
I haven't posted a list of "man made global warming religious institutions". That's a false statement. Moreover, these are most if not ALL of the places where you'd look for this kind of information if you were looking for the scientific answer. The supposition that they're not staffed by scientists is as stupid as the assertion that those medical groups in the other thread weren't run by doctors. There's no excuse for this poor logic. What we've NEVER seen in this conversation is a list of scientific strongholds that reject manmade global warming. We haven't seen that list, because it doesn't exist. The "list" you've tried to make out as holding some sort of scientific significance is not significant, and never was. Soliciting scientific opinions by providing flawed information will never amount to a real argument. Clearly, it's you who believes he can get away with something here. That was a really poor attempt at putting the argument to me. You don't counter the relevant info I gave with unsupported claims against their scientific veracity. These institutions are looked to for their professionalism. They are not generally criticized for their poor work. Surely, you, do not have a rational means of challenging their work or their theories. People that think to themselves that they're going to educate themselves about the climate don't seek out your expert understanding of the subject. Further, it just looks really poor for you intellectually when your only escape from an inconvenient argument is attempting to demonize the opposition's source. Every time you try that tactic, you lend it less credibility. You're not going to make a good case against NASA. You're not going to make a good case against the NOAA. You're not going to make a good case against the NAS. It's become your go-to move, and it's a very flawed one. IP: Logged |
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 5659 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted July 31, 2012 09:16 AM
Those are nothing but "institutions" you listed...run by bureaucrats. Are you nuts...along with all your other problems acoustic?Where's your list of REAL SCIENTISTS acoustic. 31,000 American scientists..with a liberal sprinkling of PhDs working in the climate sciences who say man made global warming is REAL...would be a good start. Or, you can continue to do what you've been doing acoustic...ducking, bobbing, weaving and evading in attempts to deflect attention from the con artists and fraudsters running your man made global warming religion. Too hot? It's global warming. Too Cold? It's global warming. Just right? It's global warming. Too much rain? It's global warming. Drought? It's global warming. Normal rainfall? It's global warming. Hurricanes? It's global warming. No hurricanes? It's global warming. Blizzards? It's global warming. No snow? It's global warming. Normal snowfall? It's global warming. Irish Potato Famine? It was global warming. IP: Logged | |