always knew global warming was a hoax
July 28th, 2011 at 2:17:03 PM
permalink
New 11 year study from NASA satellites shows global warming computer models were way off! No surprise there, The Al Gore stuff was getting a little out of control and the tree huggers were eating it up LMAO!
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
July 28th, 2011 at 2:48:15 PM
permalink
Wow, that was hard to read. Did someone replace every other word with "alarmist"?
July 28th, 2011 at 3:45:50 PM
permalink
Somebody needs to crack open their thesaurus.
July 28th, 2011 at 4:11:29 PM
permalink
"The study indicates far less future global warming will occur..."
Note the key words here are "less" not none.
And I'm glad the OP had the scientific knowledge to know ahead of the experiments what the result would be.
This is an example of what science does... it creates a model, it gets tested and revised as necessary.
Note the key words here are "less" not none.
And I'm glad the OP had the scientific knowledge to know ahead of the experiments what the result would be.
This is an example of what science does... it creates a model, it gets tested and revised as necessary.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
July 28th, 2011 at 4:33:52 PM
permalink
They had to rebrand it, after all, as "Climate Change," because climate does nothing but change. it's cold, Climate Change. it's hot, Climate Change. There are too many hurricanes, Climate Change. There are too few hurricanes, Climate Change. There's a tsunami, Climate Change; even though tsunamis are seismic rather than meteorological, but who knows how nuclear power affects the movements of the Earth's crust over the mantle, so, Climate Change!
It's not a hoax. It's a scam. It brings in money for research and power for bureucrats. Next thing you know a gas we all exhale and that plants need in order to exist, will be classified as a pollutant by some government agency. Oh, wait....
Well, a tax on breathing should help drive up the debt, I mean, drive up the deficit, I mean, keep spending high, I mean, bring spending to new heights, I mean a politician is incapable of cutting a dime.
It's not a hoax. It's a scam. It brings in money for research and power for bureucrats. Next thing you know a gas we all exhale and that plants need in order to exist, will be classified as a pollutant by some government agency. Oh, wait....
Well, a tax on breathing should help drive up the debt, I mean, drive up the deficit, I mean, keep spending high, I mean, bring spending to new heights, I mean a politician is incapable of cutting a dime.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
July 28th, 2011 at 7:34:53 PM
permalink
While Remote Sensing may be a peer reviewed publication, it's clear that Forbes is not. James Taylor should stick to writing overly sappy love songs...
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
July 29th, 2011 at 2:09:22 PM
permalink
The other big problem is the data collection sites and methods are questionable at best. Too much curve fitting is also taking place.
In order for me to take the global warming crowd seriously I would want to see the data collection sites, in order to see how these sites have changed over the decades.
In order for me to take the global warming crowd seriously I would want to see the data collection sites, in order to see how these sites have changed over the decades.
July 29th, 2011 at 6:47:32 PM
permalink
Hmmm I'm going to wait for a more intelligently written article before I change my mind on what scientists have been telling us for the last 20 years.
July 29th, 2011 at 7:16:08 PM
permalink
Wow, that WAS bad. Hard to take a point seriously with writing like that. Anyone on the forum, ANY ONE OF US, could write better than that. Yes, including That Guy.
A question, though, since this topic has been brought up. I've always understood "temperature" as a measure of a unit's kinetic energy. A molecule with low kinetic energy would vibrate slowly, causing low friction and as a result give of low heat (be cold), whereas one with high kinetic energy would vibrate quickly, cause a lot of friction and thereby give off a lot of heat (be hot). I get that the sun gives off radiation energy which strikes the Earth and causes the ground to warm, that heat tranfers into the air touching it, which rises and transmits the warmth all over. And I can understand how cloud cover (or CO2, or other gases) can "heat" the Earth by keeping that warm air low (not unlike a blanket, or a layer of hair on a body) What I DONT get is how heat escapes into space. Isn't space "empty"? How can a molecule transmit it's energy into somewhere that has nothing in it to transmit it to?
A question, though, since this topic has been brought up. I've always understood "temperature" as a measure of a unit's kinetic energy. A molecule with low kinetic energy would vibrate slowly, causing low friction and as a result give of low heat (be cold), whereas one with high kinetic energy would vibrate quickly, cause a lot of friction and thereby give off a lot of heat (be hot). I get that the sun gives off radiation energy which strikes the Earth and causes the ground to warm, that heat tranfers into the air touching it, which rises and transmits the warmth all over. And I can understand how cloud cover (or CO2, or other gases) can "heat" the Earth by keeping that warm air low (not unlike a blanket, or a layer of hair on a body) What I DONT get is how heat escapes into space. Isn't space "empty"? How can a molecule transmit it's energy into somewhere that has nothing in it to transmit it to?
The opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.
July 29th, 2011 at 7:57:14 PM
permalink
Quote: Keyserhow these sites have changed over the decades.
Decades? Is that long enough to do accurate trending?
That's like projecting the next roulette spin by looking at the last 30 numbers that hit.
July 31st, 2011 at 12:08:44 AM
permalink
Quote: kpDecades? Is that long enough to do accurate trending?
That's like projecting the next roulette spin by looking at the last 30 numbers that hit.
Bingo! You are correct, the sample size is too small to be considered statistically relevant. Then, in order to make the sample size larger, they rely on tree ring samples, ice core samples etc, and then attempt to estimate the trends back even further.
July 31st, 2011 at 6:37:47 AM
permalink
No doubt "global warming" is a hoax, but ...
... I'm going to Vegas this week and weekend, and SHIT, I can't wait to get out of this Texas heat and into the nice Vegas weather!
... I'm going to Vegas this week and weekend, and SHIT, I can't wait to get out of this Texas heat and into the nice Vegas weather!
July 31st, 2011 at 11:23:49 AM
permalink
Oh, non-scientists, the article in Forbes is very biased. If you read the actual publication in Remote Sensing (which is linked to the Forbes article), the conclusion is substantially different than the Forbes article, which uses the word "alarmist" 14 times.
For the opposing viewpoints by actual climate scientists, read (link to Discover Magazine blog).
"If you simply accept what they say without doing due diligence, you may be led down a road that leads well away from reality."
For the opposing viewpoints by actual climate scientists, read (link to Discover Magazine blog).
"If you simply accept what they say without doing due diligence, you may be led down a road that leads well away from reality."
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
July 31st, 2011 at 11:29:34 AM
permalink
Quote: boymimbo"If you simply accept what they say without doing due diligence, you may be led down a road that leads well away from reality."
True, that.
July 31st, 2011 at 11:45:15 AM
permalink
Follow the money
Forbes prints an article by James Taylor of the Heartland Institute. Heartland is funded in part by the Olin, Bradley and Walmart foundations. One of the Bradley brothers was a co-founder of the John Birch Society. The CEO of the Bradley Foundation was the campaign director for Scott Walker, the current Governor of Wisconsin. Come to your own conclusion as how much "science" is being reported in this article.
Forbes prints an article by James Taylor of the Heartland Institute. Heartland is funded in part by the Olin, Bradley and Walmart foundations. One of the Bradley brothers was a co-founder of the John Birch Society. The CEO of the Bradley Foundation was the campaign director for Scott Walker, the current Governor of Wisconsin. Come to your own conclusion as how much "science" is being reported in this article.
July 31st, 2011 at 1:10:59 PM
permalink
The global warming or "climate change" argument is really a simple one.
- Man is adding carbon dioxide and methane to the atmosphere (true) through cow farts and the burning of fossil fuels.
- Adding Carbon Dioxide to the atmosphere has some effect to the global radiation equation which can be and has been scientifically proven. Without any other effects, adding Carbon Dioxide to any normal mix of air has the effect of trapping more heat. That has been proven.
- The total effect of the other effects cannot be easily determined because the earth is very very complex.
For example, the increase of carbon dioxide may increase cloud cover, which cools the earth. The ocean is a gigantic carbon sink, but the addition of carbon dioxide to the ocean appears to be killing coral.
I'm a strong believer in progress, and I don't think we should stop burning fossil fuels to impede our progress. That said, what is the harm of moving to other forms of energy that probably do not have an impact on the future state of the planet.
- Man is adding carbon dioxide and methane to the atmosphere (true) through cow farts and the burning of fossil fuels.
- Adding Carbon Dioxide to the atmosphere has some effect to the global radiation equation which can be and has been scientifically proven. Without any other effects, adding Carbon Dioxide to any normal mix of air has the effect of trapping more heat. That has been proven.
- The total effect of the other effects cannot be easily determined because the earth is very very complex.
For example, the increase of carbon dioxide may increase cloud cover, which cools the earth. The ocean is a gigantic carbon sink, but the addition of carbon dioxide to the ocean appears to be killing coral.
I'm a strong believer in progress, and I don't think we should stop burning fossil fuels to impede our progress. That said, what is the harm of moving to other forms of energy that probably do not have an impact on the future state of the planet.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
August 2nd, 2011 at 4:25:50 PM
permalink
Quote: boymimboI'm a strong believer in progress, and I don't think we should stop burning fossil fuels to impede our progress. That said, what is the harm of moving to other forms of energy that probably do not have an impact on the future state of the planet.
To this day the cheapest forms of energy are fossil fuels. Not just gas and diessel for cars and trucks, but coal, oil and natural gas for power plants. Hydroelectic power is cheap and fairly reliable, but requires a huge capital investmant, and of course it won't work just anywhere. Everything else is either very unreliable, expensive, over-regulated or all of these
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
September 14th, 2011 at 8:51:36 PM
permalink
Nobel prize winner quits American Physical Society over its stance on "incontrovertible" global warming.
I know some of us on this forum don't trust FoxNews, but surprisingly, given the influence the climate change point is trying to exercise over our liberties, I couldn't find this pretty big climate story anywhere else. And, if you read it, it's not the kind of article that can be slanted.
Anyway, all that to say ... again ... global warming is far from "settled science," and the side that wants to shut debate is the side that believes in it. Or, I suppose that this Nobel prize winner is just simply an idiot.
Between this, the Solyndra scandal, the (as yet non-existent but like Obamacare we have to pass it before we know what's in it) new stimulus jobs package, Obama is becoming reprobate to the point where anyone who supports him (as opposed to just opposing the Republican candidate) has to be viewed with suspicion. Even Enron wasn't this ham-handed. The guy may be smart, but he seems to think that the rest of the world are idiots. (Which is, ironically, a very stupid assumption.)
But don't worry. MSNBC.com proudly displays its banner about the weirdness of college football uniforms, so the liberal community will at least know what the Maryland flag looks like.
I know some of us on this forum don't trust FoxNews, but surprisingly, given the influence the climate change point is trying to exercise over our liberties, I couldn't find this pretty big climate story anywhere else. And, if you read it, it's not the kind of article that can be slanted.
Anyway, all that to say ... again ... global warming is far from "settled science," and the side that wants to shut debate is the side that believes in it. Or, I suppose that this Nobel prize winner is just simply an idiot.
Between this, the Solyndra scandal, the (as yet non-existent but like Obamacare we have to pass it before we know what's in it) new stimulus jobs package, Obama is becoming reprobate to the point where anyone who supports him (as opposed to just opposing the Republican candidate) has to be viewed with suspicion. Even Enron wasn't this ham-handed. The guy may be smart, but he seems to think that the rest of the world are idiots. (Which is, ironically, a very stupid assumption.)
But don't worry. MSNBC.com proudly displays its banner about the weirdness of college football uniforms, so the liberal community will at least know what the Maryland flag looks like.
September 15th, 2011 at 12:36:04 PM
permalink
Here is my problem with the "global warming crowd"......Is it true that adding methane and carbon dioxide to the atmosphere traps heat an warms the earth? Of course it is....only someone with an IQ over 10 would deny this....but to what degree? They dont know this..but yet they make claims like they do.....The earth has gone through many warming cooling cycles....for to many reasons to list....currently the earth is getting warmer. No one is denying this...BUT...to what extent is mans carbon footprint playing in this?....Is it responsible for 2% of the current warming or 99%......the tree huggers would say 99% and...and the fossil fuel industry would probably say 2%...who is right? NO BODY KNOWS.....
But of course if you say its only responsible for 5% or 10% of the current warming then you dont get grant money....and you have to go out in the real world and find a job like the rest of us......So of course you are gonna say it responsible for 99% of the current warming....YOUR WHOLE DAMN CAREER IS BUILT ON THESE CLAIMS.....It amazes me that so many damn hippies can point out how bankers and "wall streeters" will do anything for money BUT.....think that scientist wont LOL....
But of course if you say its only responsible for 5% or 10% of the current warming then you dont get grant money....and you have to go out in the real world and find a job like the rest of us......So of course you are gonna say it responsible for 99% of the current warming....YOUR WHOLE DAMN CAREER IS BUILT ON THESE CLAIMS.....It amazes me that so many damn hippies can point out how bankers and "wall streeters" will do anything for money BUT.....think that scientist wont LOL....
September 28th, 2011 at 8:27:14 PM
permalink
It's not Global warming anymore. It's Climate Change.
September 29th, 2011 at 4:52:50 PM
permalink
Most people who are employed by the "Climate Change" industry are those with positions already. If they weren't researching climate change, they'd be researching something else.
Scientists have an interest in lying in order to secure grant money in order to secure positions for their teaching assistants, etc. Those who do so are immoral and should be fired. But this kind of stuff has being going on for years. I spent a summer on an NSERC grant attempting validating a theory on RR Lyrae variables (they are standard candles used to measure galactic distances). If the theory was true, paper published, my name would be attached to it, and fame for the professor (perhaps a full professorship). The theory was false. No paper was published, but she didn't lose her job. She just published more papers.
I've done the scientific work and taken the required physics and meteorology courses to know more than enough about global warming and climate change. The issue with proving climate change has always been the validity of the climate models and all of the feedbacks which are both known and unknown. What is quite known and completely accepted is that Carbon Dioxide and Methane are two man-made gases that trap solar radiition in the atmosphere, and that their concentration in the atmosphere has been steadily increasing since the industrial age. A great deal of work has also been undertaken to understand how Gaia (mother nature) deals with the increase of these greenhouse gases.
The ocean and plants are absorbing more carbon dioxide (and killing coral). There is probably more cloud cover. More cloud cover increases reflectivity which reduces the effect of global warming (depending on where the clouds are - if the clouds are over land it has the opposite effect). The sun's radiation is variable and depends on the 11 year sunspot cycle. Large volcanic eruptions eject large amounts of sulfates into the upper atmosphere and cool the planet.
So there are lots of factors at work. However, the basic factor remains: humans are releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere which increase the amount fo solar radiation trapped in the atmosphere. How the climate reacts to this forcing is the topic of debate today. I would say that the global warming argument of 10 years ago has morphed into climate change.
Scientists have an interest in lying in order to secure grant money in order to secure positions for their teaching assistants, etc. Those who do so are immoral and should be fired. But this kind of stuff has being going on for years. I spent a summer on an NSERC grant attempting validating a theory on RR Lyrae variables (they are standard candles used to measure galactic distances). If the theory was true, paper published, my name would be attached to it, and fame for the professor (perhaps a full professorship). The theory was false. No paper was published, but she didn't lose her job. She just published more papers.
I've done the scientific work and taken the required physics and meteorology courses to know more than enough about global warming and climate change. The issue with proving climate change has always been the validity of the climate models and all of the feedbacks which are both known and unknown. What is quite known and completely accepted is that Carbon Dioxide and Methane are two man-made gases that trap solar radiition in the atmosphere, and that their concentration in the atmosphere has been steadily increasing since the industrial age. A great deal of work has also been undertaken to understand how Gaia (mother nature) deals with the increase of these greenhouse gases.
The ocean and plants are absorbing more carbon dioxide (and killing coral). There is probably more cloud cover. More cloud cover increases reflectivity which reduces the effect of global warming (depending on where the clouds are - if the clouds are over land it has the opposite effect). The sun's radiation is variable and depends on the 11 year sunspot cycle. Large volcanic eruptions eject large amounts of sulfates into the upper atmosphere and cool the planet.
So there are lots of factors at work. However, the basic factor remains: humans are releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere which increase the amount fo solar radiation trapped in the atmosphere. How the climate reacts to this forcing is the topic of debate today. I would say that the global warming argument of 10 years ago has morphed into climate change.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
October 21st, 2011 at 4:20:39 AM
permalink
This story optimistically states that the results of this new study funded by prominent skeptics will convince the skeptics of climate change because it didn't support their original premises.
That's about as likely as Rush Limbaugh becoming a vegan.
As the Koch brothers invested in it, it might be interesting what they think about the results though.
That's about as likely as Rush Limbaugh becoming a vegan.
As the Koch brothers invested in it, it might be interesting what they think about the results though.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
October 21st, 2011 at 5:46:16 AM
permalink
Skeptics who don't understand science will blame fluctuations in the solar output and other factors besides man for the 1 C change in surface temperature. Others will just state that 1 degree celcius is no big deal.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
October 21st, 2011 at 10:31:27 AM
permalink
Physicist Richard Muller was a skeptic of global warming who didn’t trust the treehugger wackos and the alarmist “scientists” who pandered to them. So he gathered up a team of 10 real scientists (included 2011 Nobel Prize recipient Saul Perlmutter) and set out to debunk the politically correct nonsense by crunching the temperature data (1.6 billion measurements from more than 39,000 temperature stations around the world). And then something surprising happened: Muller and his colleagues realized that global warming is real.
So is Muller just another con artist in on the hoax?
So is Muller just another con artist in on the hoax?
October 22nd, 2011 at 8:27:16 AM
permalink
Quote: boymimboSkeptics who don't understand science will blame fluctuations in the solar output and other factors besides man for the 1 C change in surface temperature. Others will just state that 1 degree celcius is no big deal.
The best part is both are correct.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
February 1st, 2012 at 5:02:25 AM
permalink
Yep, I always trust tabloids to pick up my news.
The paper released actually concludes this link to abstract here:
The tabloid then goes on to state that "Cycle 25 -- the 22 year sunspot cycle" will be much weaker and therefore, temperatures might be weaker still. Then they correlate the Met's release that temperatures have not risen in 15 years and that the ocean current are in fact influencing temperatures and that climate scientists have to take these into accounts.
Here is the Met's response to the completely false statement that the earth has not warmed in the last 15 years: Link to met article.
Context, folks. A false statement is made (the earth has in fact, warmed greatly in the past 15 years). The change in solar output due to sunspots is a great deal smaller than our human influences. The effect of changes in ocean currents and their changes in wind patterns are still being understood. So you can put your head in the sand and point to crappy journalism like this, state that most climate scientists are rigging the data, and say that your casual local observations overrule everything else, or you can look at the actual science.
The paper released actually concludes this link to abstract here:
Quote: agu.orgDuring the 20th century solar activity increased in magnitude to a so called `grand maximum'. It is probable that this high level of solar activity is at or near its end. It is of great interest whether any future reduction in solar activity could have a significant impact on climate that could partially offset the projected anthropogenic warming. Observations and reconstructions of solar activity over the last 9000 years are used as a constraint on possible future variations to produce probability distributions of total solar irradiance over the next 100 years. Using this information, with a simple climate model, we present results of the potential implications for future projections of climate on decadal to multi-decadal timescales. Using one of the most recent reconstructions of historic total solar irradiance, the likely reduction in the warming by 2100 is found to be between 0.06 and 0.1K, a very small fraction of the projected anthropogenic warming. However if past total solar irradiance variations are larger and climate models substantially underestimate the response to solar variations then there is a potential for a reduction in solar activity to mitigate a small proportion of the future warming, a scenario we cannot totally rule out. While the Sun is not expected to provide substantial delays in the time to reach critical temperature thresholds, any small delays it might provide are likely to be greater for lower anthropogenic emissions scenarios than for higher emissions scenarios.
The tabloid then goes on to state that "Cycle 25 -- the 22 year sunspot cycle" will be much weaker and therefore, temperatures might be weaker still. Then they correlate the Met's release that temperatures have not risen in 15 years and that the ocean current are in fact influencing temperatures and that climate scientists have to take these into accounts.
Here is the Met's response to the completely false statement that the earth has not warmed in the last 15 years: Link to met article.
Quote: Met OfficeToday the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about”.
This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.
Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997.
For clarity I have included our full response to David Rose below:A spokesman for the Met Office said: “The ten year projection remains groundbreaking science. The complete period for the original projection is not over yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of the most recent data.
“The projections are probabilistic in nature, and no individual forecast should be taken in isolation. Instead, several decades of data will be needed to assess the robustness of the projections.
“However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.”
Context, folks. A false statement is made (the earth has in fact, warmed greatly in the past 15 years). The change in solar output due to sunspots is a great deal smaller than our human influences. The effect of changes in ocean currents and their changes in wind patterns are still being understood. So you can put your head in the sand and point to crappy journalism like this, state that most climate scientists are rigging the data, and say that your casual local observations overrule everything else, or you can look at the actual science.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
February 1st, 2012 at 11:20:35 AM
permalink
Wasn't it Ronald Reagan back in the 80's that said that Trees were the "greatest polluter" (referring to the Tokyo decision to Classify CO2 as a pollutant) on Earth?
Some people need to reimagine their thinking.
February 1st, 2012 at 2:49:18 PM
permalink
Quote: boymimboContext, folks. A false statement is made (the earth has in fact, warmed greatly in the past 15 years). The change in solar output due to sunspots is a great deal smaller than our human influences. The effect of changes in ocean currents and their changes in wind patterns are still being understood. So you can put your head in the sand and point to crappy journalism like this, state that most climate scientists are rigging the data, and say that your casual local observations overrule everything else, or you can look at the actual science.
I will look at the actual science and not the junk put out by Gore and the "global warming is my religion" crowd and see that there is no reason for the alarmism. More and more people are questioning the warming nonsense, which is a good thing. If we followed "trendlines" the way the envrionmentalists do we would be seeing news reports today that said at current rates the sun would be out 24/7 in most of the Northern Hemisphere and the South would be in total darkness, then a call for a "sun tax" to distribute to Southern Hemisphere countries........
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
February 2nd, 2012 at 3:53:15 PM
permalink
The Wall Street Journal had a guest editorial on this that was a little more responsible. It doesnt claim there has been no warming, but that alarmism is not called for, nor should scientists march shoulder to shoulder mindlessly in the cause.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?KEYWORDS=warming#articleTabs%3Darticle
btw I am sure this link will work only for a short duration.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?KEYWORDS=warming#articleTabs%3Darticle
btw I am sure this link will work only for a short duration.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
July 23rd, 2013 at 11:03:41 AM
permalink
For more information on who actually caused global warming, look up Maurice Strong.
This chart shows the warming and cooling periods from the past 4500 years. You can see that the warm periods are not getting warmer and the cooling periods are getting deeper. I've read scientific papers they show only 4 major volcanic eruptions are needed per year to trigger a cooling period. The reason for this is called a solar mirror.
A solar mirror is caused then the ratio of atmospheric dust and water prevents enough moisture to form on the dust particles. What happens is that the dust and water ice crystal is not heavy enough to fall as rain or snow. When this happens the ice crystal form a mirror and decreases the amount of solar radiation, heat and light from hitting the rocky surface of the planet. Pretty much less heat enters the atmosphere.
There is just so much more to this than the simple CO2 theory. According to NOAA scientists, the Sun is in a cool period and have been for almost a decade. Because of this, solar output is low. The solar cycle, this one is number 24, is at maximum. We hit it late last year. We are now heading back towards solar minimum with a Sun that is cooling. The logical outcome is a cooling period.
If it makes you feel guilty and the guilt makes you feel better, then by all means blame yourself. I'm not buying into it.
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
This chart shows the warming and cooling periods from the past 4500 years. You can see that the warm periods are not getting warmer and the cooling periods are getting deeper. I've read scientific papers they show only 4 major volcanic eruptions are needed per year to trigger a cooling period. The reason for this is called a solar mirror.
A solar mirror is caused then the ratio of atmospheric dust and water prevents enough moisture to form on the dust particles. What happens is that the dust and water ice crystal is not heavy enough to fall as rain or snow. When this happens the ice crystal form a mirror and decreases the amount of solar radiation, heat and light from hitting the rocky surface of the planet. Pretty much less heat enters the atmosphere.
There is just so much more to this than the simple CO2 theory. According to NOAA scientists, the Sun is in a cool period and have been for almost a decade. Because of this, solar output is low. The solar cycle, this one is number 24, is at maximum. We hit it late last year. We are now heading back towards solar minimum with a Sun that is cooling. The logical outcome is a cooling period.
If it makes you feel guilty and the guilt makes you feel better, then by all means blame yourself. I'm not buying into it.
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
Buffering...
July 23rd, 2013 at 8:52:45 PM
permalink
Conclusions on the variability of the sun's change in output over this century shows that the variation in the solar output will lead to climate change of 0.08 C where as changes dues to anthropological outputs are much, much greater than that. Read the full paper here.
Volcanos have a far greater effect, and if you want to cool the earth down (temporarily) maybe we'll develop technology to force volcanic eruptions.
Volcanos have a far greater effect, and if you want to cool the earth down (temporarily) maybe we'll develop technology to force volcanic eruptions.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
July 23rd, 2013 at 9:20:48 PM
permalink
Man has turned the world into a cesspool. It saddens me greatly watching people litter our planet, pollute our water and the air we breathe. I realize this is a thread about global warming, but our planet would be a better place if we all did just a little bit to make it better.
I'm no environmental wacko, but when I walk the beaches I try to do my part and pick up litter that morons have left behind. If I see a bag on the ground, I'll pick it up and dispose of it properly. Yesterday I picked up 3 yogurt containers and about a dozen plastic bags that idiots left on the beach. It makes me feel better, and I believe I'm doing my part. I also try to take public transportation (the train) when possible, and limit the driving of my vehicle to a minimum. Additionally I support an animal protection group with a check of $200 a year. I'm not rich, but $200 I can afford to donate to a worthy cause. Let's all clean up this blue marble!
I'm no environmental wacko, but when I walk the beaches I try to do my part and pick up litter that morons have left behind. If I see a bag on the ground, I'll pick it up and dispose of it properly. Yesterday I picked up 3 yogurt containers and about a dozen plastic bags that idiots left on the beach. It makes me feel better, and I believe I'm doing my part. I also try to take public transportation (the train) when possible, and limit the driving of my vehicle to a minimum. Additionally I support an animal protection group with a check of $200 a year. I'm not rich, but $200 I can afford to donate to a worthy cause. Let's all clean up this blue marble!
July 24th, 2013 at 6:17:59 AM
permalink
Quote: VPKingNJMan has turned the world into a cesspool. It saddens me greatly watching people litter our planet, pollute our water and the air we breathe. I realize this is a thread about global warming, but our planet would be a better place if we all did just a little bit to make it better.
I'm no environmental wacko, but when I walk the beaches I try to do my part...
[sarcasm]Communist sicko![/sarcasm]
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
July 24th, 2013 at 12:33:52 PM
permalink
Quote: boymimboVolcanos have a far greater effect, and if you want to cool the earth down (temporarily) maybe we'll develop technology to force volcanic eruptions.
...Why would we do that, when there exists a perfectly well developed and documented way to cause a nuclear winter - it's even in the name? In reality, though, more like an autumn than a winter, i.e. about a 6-10C drop for a year and 2-3C mid-term.
The remaining nuclear powers should take disarmament a step further with SALT IV, and this time, to make sure the equipment being retired doesn't fall into the wrong hands - make it fall on them instead.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
July 24th, 2013 at 10:48:13 PM
permalink
Yeah, sure, I guess nuclear winter is an option too, which will take care of overpopulation by reducing the population by a few billion and making most of the planet uninhabitable for the next 50-60 years too.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
July 25th, 2013 at 6:37:37 AM
permalink
The initial estimates were extremely panicky and have been revised a few times. Realistically we're not looking at all that much. Just a bit of the highest latitudes losing agricultural capability, perhaps some of least developed nations will have a pop reduction even in lower latitudes. Elsewhere the day gets a little shorter, season boundaries also shift by a few weeks. Other effects are minimal if altitude detonation is employed, and almost all of the depopulation will be targeted, not random.
Besides, nuclear scenario ash is actually better than volcanic ash in many regards. It consists mostly of carbon with much lower density (2-3 times) and a far higher concentration of superfine soot particles than in volcanic eruptions. These micron size particle have excellent long-term retention; in contrast, volcanic ash hits hard initially, but falls out quickly.
It doesn't quite help the GW cause that this ash is initially produced by combustion, but any greenhouse effects from CO2 emissions are negligible, not even 1/1000th, of the insolation reduction from atmospheric blackout. And it's good for about 20 years to return to balance point, potentially 30 before reapplication is called for.
Besides, nuclear scenario ash is actually better than volcanic ash in many regards. It consists mostly of carbon with much lower density (2-3 times) and a far higher concentration of superfine soot particles than in volcanic eruptions. These micron size particle have excellent long-term retention; in contrast, volcanic ash hits hard initially, but falls out quickly.
It doesn't quite help the GW cause that this ash is initially produced by combustion, but any greenhouse effects from CO2 emissions are negligible, not even 1/1000th, of the insolation reduction from atmospheric blackout. And it's good for about 20 years to return to balance point, potentially 30 before reapplication is called for.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
August 17th, 2013 at 1:17:04 PM
permalink
I found this. I am using it to support my belief that Global Warming is a hoax and it's designed to control people, resources and land.
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/08/nasa-massively-tampering-with-the-us-temperature-record-2740118.html
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/08/nasa-massively-tampering-with-the-us-temperature-record-2740118.html
Buffering...
August 17th, 2013 at 6:10:17 PM
permalink
Quote: wrobersonI am using it to support my belief that Global Warming is a hoax
You're welcome to accuse the biased liberal news media and the corrupt evil university scientists of perpetuating a giant conspiracy. But if the earth's temperature is stable, how do you account for the fact that the Arctic ice cap is disappearing? Either the North Pole ice is actually melting or the shipping industry is in on the hoax. What would the shipping industry gain by lying about the disappearing Arctic ice? This conspiracy is getting bigger and bigger.
August 18th, 2013 at 11:52:01 PM
permalink
Quote: renoYou're welcome to accuse the biased liberal news media and the corrupt evil university scientists of perpetuating a giant conspiracy. But if the earth's temperature is stable, how do you account for the fact that the Arctic ice cap is disappearing? Either the North Pole ice is actually melting or the shipping industry is in on the hoax. What would the shipping industry gain by lying about the disappearing Arctic ice? This conspiracy is getting bigger and bigger.
Shorter route to the destination.
I could type stuff until I'm blue and it's not going to prove anything. I'm not going to support the global warming theory. Ever. I get data that says one thing. Someone gets data that says the opposite. It's pointless. I believe the Earth warms in cools in cycles. Period.
Better have an extra blanket and cord of firewood just in case. I've got some suntan lotion, Witch Hazel and Noxzema around here somewhere...
Buffering...
August 19th, 2013 at 8:32:13 AM
permalink
Quote: wrobersonI could type stuff until I'm blue and it's not going to prove anything. I'm not going to support the global warming theory. Ever. I get data that says one thing. Someone gets data that says the opposite. It's pointless. I believe the Earth warms in cools in cycles. Period.
How scientific.
The trick to poker is learning not to beat yourself up for your mistakes too much, and certainly not too little, but just the right amount.
August 19th, 2013 at 9:04:43 AM
permalink
Quote: wrobersonShorter route to the destination.
I'm disappointed you didn't read the links. In 2013, some 204 ships were able to cross the Arctic on a route that had previously been covered in ice for thousands of years. Zero ships were able to do this just 4 years ago. That's a rather startling jump in numbers. The question is, why is it possible to do this in 2013, but it was impossible to do in 2009? What changed? The shipping industry claims the difference between now and 4 years ago is that the Arctic ice has melted significantly.
Some denialists insist that the earth's temperature is stable. Other denialists insist that the earth is actually getting cooler. But if either of these assertions were correct, we wouldn't be witnessing such dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice. When NASA publishes satellite images of the disappearing Arctic ice, the denialists insist that NASA is scamming the public by rigging the data. Perhaps the evil NASA scientists are a bunch of liars.
But if the scientists are lying, why is the shipping industry also lying?
August 19th, 2013 at 9:18:32 PM
permalink
Thank you. The easiest answer is the best solution. The NWP has been in the sights of the shipping indsutry for a long time. They've been working to open it to year round shipping. It's not the global warming, it the hard work and dedication of breaking ice year after year for many decades.
Buffering...
August 21st, 2013 at 7:11:29 AM
permalink
Yeah, that's it, because when you break ice, it never forms again. I hate to tell you this, but the freezing point of ocean water is around -2 degrees celcius. When the sea is colder than that, it's ice. When it's warmer, it's water.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
August 21st, 2013 at 8:54:51 AM
permalink
Quote: boymimboThe global warming or "climate change" argument is really a simple one.
I'm a strong believer in progress, and I don't think we should stop burning fossil fuels to impede our progress. That said, what is the harm of moving to other forms of energy that probably do not have an impact on the future state of the planet.
Depends. If we were to harness all the wind energy, what would be the climate consequences?
August 21st, 2013 at 2:44:06 PM
permalink
Quote: wrobersonIt's not the global warming, it the hard work and dedication of breaking ice year after year for many decades.
How naive. Do you have any sources to back this up? The ice breakers work seasonally, and all their hard work in the summer is completely ruined by winter storms.
Forget the tree-hugging hippies in the liberal media, here's some analysis from the conservative Wall Street Journal: "The Northern Sea Route has become viable as a commercial shipping lane only in the past few years, as the season of thinning ice has grown longer. The speed at which it can develop is limited, though, as it is still navigable only around four months a year—although climate change may keep lengthening that."
August 22nd, 2013 at 12:14:01 AM
permalink
If "they"'ve wanted the shipping route open and if it's open due to warming, why are "they" complaining and trying to reduce warming?
My point is that by breaking ice for as long as possible in a season can cause ice thinning because it only had X number of months where breaking did not occur and only Y number of months where freezing was allowed. This thinning or thin ice will melt faster than ice that had not been broken up as much or at all.
I have no doubt the planet moves in and out of cold periods...
My point is that by breaking ice for as long as possible in a season can cause ice thinning because it only had X number of months where breaking did not occur and only Y number of months where freezing was allowed. This thinning or thin ice will melt faster than ice that had not been broken up as much or at all.
I have no doubt the planet moves in and out of cold periods...
Buffering...
August 23rd, 2013 at 9:17:29 AM
permalink
You've already admitted you take this on absolute faith, because it makes you feel superior. I don't know if they went on a fool's errand of breaking ice they thought to be unbreakable every year until they found it wasn't, but it doesn't really matter; it's nothing more than an ad hoc explanation of evidence plain to everyone, not even really evidence to the contrary, let alone a refutation. Leave reality to those who care how it actually works.
The trick to poker is learning not to beat yourself up for your mistakes too much, and certainly not too little, but just the right amount.
August 23rd, 2013 at 10:03:46 AM
permalink
Yeah, the planet does move out of cold and warm periods, but usually over thousands of years, unless it is the result of an asteroid hitting the planet like the one that destroyed the ecosystem 65 million years ago.
When you have quick changes in global temperatures (like over 100 years, not thousands of years), species can't adapt and they die off.
The ice is thinner because the arctic is warmer, which allows icebreakers to do their work much more easily and allow shipping through the northwest passage with not as much risk.
When you have quick changes in global temperatures (like over 100 years, not thousands of years), species can't adapt and they die off.
The ice is thinner because the arctic is warmer, which allows icebreakers to do their work much more easily and allow shipping through the northwest passage with not as much risk.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
August 25th, 2013 at 12:56:49 AM
permalink
I've also posted similar point made in this article. I really think there's a problem, but it's not warming. Not in the next few years. The reason is weak solar output and the Solar Cycle is turning towards minimum which was not mentioned here.
http://news.yahoo.com/global-warming-hit-plateau-100000352.html
You're going to need extra blankets and maybe a generator. This is going to be 1 brutal winter. (north of I-80)
http://news.yahoo.com/global-warming-hit-plateau-100000352.html
You're going to need extra blankets and maybe a generator. This is going to be 1 brutal winter. (north of I-80)
Buffering...
