global temps DECREASING, FACT!!!

[alpha]

this is a eureka moment for me!

finally found information that is still up from a recognised source, namely NASA, that shows 2008 as the coolest year in a decade:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=36699

of course it says 8th warmest year on record, or that's what others are saying, but that's completely normal, it's going to take a long time for the World's temps to decrease as the Sun is shut down. Once it wakes up the temps will gradually rise again.

it's so bloody obvious it's frightening!

as we know, Winter 2009 in the Northern Hemisphere is breaking records already. As I have said before if the Jet Stream stays South over the Atlantic this year we (Europe) are going to freeze, guess what? we bloody are! This will be the coolest winter for a decade in the UK. We even get snow off an Atlantic westerly! that is HIGHLY unusual.

as for North America, well I don't need to tell some of our members, we're talking record breaking cold!

if the Sun stays shut down we can guarantee this cold is going to continue. Surely EVERYONE can see this now? yes????

if the effects of the Sun shutting down are this dramatic (just look at the 2008 temp decrease, that is sharp!) and the Planet has done with it's heat expellation from the core, what will happen if the Sun STAYS shut down in 2009?

answers on a post card!!

[Protostar]

I have "worked out" that if you decrease one of the combustable ingredients in a soda pop bottle, the carbonation will lessen...
sound familiar? I think the sun might "flatline" but not stop...
I don't know physics as to what causes some ingredients to escape
but they do. due to variables.
and the sun is changing it's "speed" and no matter what is being said
about the sun, one thing remains the constant.
IT IS ASLEEP. And all of the Stereo 'flyby's ain't gonna change that
FACT. But, they sure can spin a tale, like the one last week where
a cycle 23 spot "worked its way" up the disk and the solar scientists
said it wasn't a cycle 23 or 24 sunspot.
OH REALLY?
They REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT CYCLE 23 IS HERE TO STAY.
and that is bullshit that it's "ramping up".....
If that were true,
The earth WOULD STILL BE IN A WARMING PHASE.
which it isn't.

[lycanox]

Its just one year.
And there are no indications that something extraordinary going on.
You at least need a decade to make any long term predictions about the temperature.

[alpha]

lol...
i saw that on spaceweather today.

"The sunspot was a member of new Solar Cycle 24; we know this because of its high latitude where new-cycle sunspots are always born. By the time the region rotated around to face Earth, it was fading away; no dark sunspot core was visible. Without STEREO, it might have escaped attention completely.

Solar Cycle 24 is slowly gaining strength. STEREO will allow greater scrutiny of this cycle than any other in the history of solar physics. Stay tuned for more births in the months ahead."

how the hell do they KNOW this when there's so much new data and stuff we simply have no clue about!!

until we see 5 growing sunspots a day! we are stuck in cycle 23 for sure as you say Protostar...

[alpha]

Its just one year.
And there are no indications that something extraordinary going on.
You at least need a decade to make any long term predictions about the temperature.

no indication!

are you kidding me. the Sun has completely shut down.

look at the difference between today and 22nd Jan 2003. Notice anything??

http://www.spaceweather.com/index.php

in particular compare the coronal holes image at the bottom left and the sunspots.

http://www.spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=22&month=01&year=2003

or how about 2002!

http://www.spaceweather.com/archive.php?month=01&day=22&year=2002&view=view

the decrease in activity coincides with record colder weather in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres in late 2007, all of 2008 and now.

yes it's just a year but you have to see the correlation ? yes?

so until the Sun wakes up for cycle 24 we are going to freeze.

[Mezurashi]

Its just one year.
And there are no indications that something extraordinary going on.
You at least need a decade to make any long term predictions about the temperature.

this didn't seem to stop the scientists who went to the UN with their 'man made climate change' rhetoric.

and if their findings are over the 10 year baseline consider Those Findings are also part of the Current Baseline for Solar Activity, which the Man Made Climate Change group seems to be doing their best to ignore.

an ENTIRE FIELD of scientific study Rejected beause the findingd Were Too Difficult to Reconcile with the Man Made Climate Change chimera.

funny how it's EASY to believe we caused something yet when the other shoe drops in the form of Our Own Sun it once again becomes Fantasy or Non Credible.

ostriches, all of them are ostriches ...

[midnight21]

ugh. I have to put up with this winter longer than march then? Bloody fantastic. I swear I'm going to move to Australia one day. *mutters a few good words about wisconsin*

[olddragon]

Here's a nice article on Ice.

The day the sea froze:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1105053/The-day-sea-froze-Temperature-plunges-MINUS-12C-forecasters-say-wont-warm-Sunday.html

[lycanox]

this didn't seem to stop the scientists who went to the UN with their 'man made climate change' rhetoric.

and if their findings are over the 10 year baseline consider Those Findings are also part of the Current Baseline for Solar Activity, which the Man Made Climate Change group seems to be doing their best to ignore.

an ENTIRE FIELD of scientific study Rejected beause the findingd Were Too Difficult to Reconcile with the Man Made Climate Change chimera.

funny how it's EASY to believe we caused something yet when the other shoe drops in the form of Our Own Sun it once again becomes Fantasy or Non Credible.

ostriches, all of them are ostriches ...
Sorry but all the evidence points that global temperatures are slowly rising on the long run. Not lowering.
There is just no evidence to suggest that this trent is on the verge of reversing itself.

We might perhaps get a couple of cooler years in between, due to sun activity and changes in ocean temperatures. but they will be just that, just some cooler years in between.
I do not see important cold records being broken yet or the return of the type of winters we had a couple of decades ago.
Its not like solar cycles have that much effect on the temperatures on earth.

[Mezurashi]

Sorry but all the evidence points that global temperatures are slowly rising on the long run. Not lowering.
There is just no evidence to suggest that this trent is on the verge of reversing itself.

We might perhaps get a couple of cooler years in between, due to sun activity and changes in ocean temperatures. but they will be just that, just some cooler years in between.
But I do not see important cold records being broken yet or the return of the type of winters we had a couple of decades ago.
Its not like solar cycles have that much effect on earth.

all I've been hearing on Canadian Weather News is that we've been breaking records which have stood for 70 - 100 years.

question; What Was Going On 100 Years Ago that we're only now starting to regain the equilibrium of back then?

and Why Why Why is it so hard to Accept the fact that all our industrial pollution combined times ten doesn't mean Shit compared to the effects of One Coronal Burp?

Why is it so hard to Acknoweledge that the Sun Is The Ultimate Arbiter of Solar System Climate?

and explain to me, sir, how Human Intervention causes Global Climate Shift ON OTHER PLANETS.

please, I'd like to know ...

[alpha]

Lycanox!

you're telling me this ain't significant:

http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/dutch-canals-freeze-over-for-the-first-time-in-12-years/

the last time you could skate on the canals in Holland was 1996. The last time the sea froze and the Thames froze in the UK was 1981!

I cannot believe you say Sun cycles don't mean anything!

madness mate, madness!

there has been an abrupt change. It happened in late 2006. We are feeling the effects now, it's getting colder, steadily. I've laid several bets with friends who are in your camp that 2009 will be cooler again. It definitely will if the Sun stays shut down!

What we're saying is this COULD be the start of a serious cold spell and if you look at the average temps in the last 150 years there were spikes of high temps like we've seen in the last 50 years that just as suddenly drop to low temps the like they saw in the 1600's when every river in the UK and Europe froze!

Don't forget the winter of 1963 saw snow and ice constantly for 3 months in the UK and that was in our supposed warm period!

[olddragon]

http://i377.photobucket.com/albums/oo216/JFLLive/ostrich_head_in_ground.jpg

The Al Gore crowd

[lycanox]

all I've been hearing on Canadian Weather News is that we've been breaking records which have stood for 70 - 100 years.

question; What Was Going On 100 Years Ago that we're only now starting to regain the equilibrium of back then?Canada is not the entire world.



and Why Why Why is it so hard to Accept the fact that all our industrial pollution combined times ten doesn't mean Shit compared to the effects of One Coronal Burp?
The heat that the planets receive van the sun is relatively constant.
And does not suddenly drop or rise within 2 year time.

And even without our emissions we are still in a natural long term warming phase of the cycle.




Why is it so hard to Acknoweledge that the Sun Is The Ultimate Arbiter of Solar System Climate?Because there are a lot more factors that control the climate on planets than just solar cycles.
Like orbit, atmosphere and even ground colour.

You simply cant just look at the sun alone and predict that there is going to be a record breaking winter just by looking at the sun.

In fact a couple of years ago we had a another expert that thought he could predict the weather by looking at the sun. And predicted an cyclone to hit west Europe in November. The storm never formed.


and explain to me, sir, how Human Intervention causes Global Climate Shift ON OTHER PLANETS.

please, I'd like to know ...
We have absolutely not enough data about the climates on other planets to make any accurate claims about climate change on those.
But the information we do have point that they also are rising instead of cooling.



Lycanox!

you're telling me this ain't significant:

http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2...e-in-12-years/

the last time you could skate on the canals in Holland was 1996. The last time the sea froze and the Thames froze in the UK was 1981!
Which was mostly because the warm air constantly failed to reach the land before loosing too much warmth. And the weather is actually quite enjoyable right now. And it was also the first time since 1996 that they allowed the canals to freeze.



I cannot believe you say Sun cycles don't mean anything!

madness mate, madness!
One week of snow is not enough to convince me that there is more to come. We didn't even get an elfstedentocht.


there has been an abrupt change. It happened in late 2006. We are feeling the effects now, it's getting colder, steadily. I've laid several bets with friends who are in your camp that 2009 will be cooler again. It definitely will if the Sun stays shut down!

What we're saying is this COULD be the start of a serious cold spell and if you look at the average temps in the last 150 years there were spikes of high temps like we've seen in the last 50 years that just as suddenly drop to low temps the like they saw in the 1600's when every river in the UK and Europe froze!

Don't forget the winter of 1963 saw snow and ice constantly for 3 months in the UK and that was in our supposed warm period!
Whether or not these cycles cause an extreme winter or not depend on several more factors than the sun alone.
The effect of this cycle might only cause a moderate winter instead of the mild ones we had earlier.

[Glacial Ridge]

Factors Factors and more friggin or frigid Factors.

You both make some good points.

Is this a long term trend, the present cooling period?
Solar physicists around the world would like to know.

We had in the last seven solar cycles periods of back to back solar eruptions enough to melt ice caps on Mars. We had enough plasma that the radiation belt almost pushed it's way into the atmosphere at one point. We had our atmosphere blown off at another. AC DC started saying it's a Melt Down man it's getting hot, hotter. The sun was over exhuberant to say the least. One day we will find out how that current travel to the core via the magnetic poles themselves. (but that's yet another thread) Thank God it is giving us a break.

Take a look at the slope coming off Cycle 23, what a slope, must mean time to go skiing. lol Take a look at the amount of cosmic rays while sun activity is low hmmm cloud cover, watervapor precipitation, blocking the little activity we are getting from the sun. I predict it is cooler this year and last year. lol

http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/modplotth.gif

http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/modplot.html

Did you remember to factor your cosmic rays Lycanox?
How about all that plate grinding going on over there by the Australian plate. How about all the blacksmoker, thermal vents and volcanoes on the oceans floors, did they factor those also? Maybe its El Nino or La Nino eh

[Nasik]

Well, respectfully, I would like to take advantage of Alpha's original article, posted, ostensibly, in support of his "cooling trend" theory. In that same article, which many appear not to have actually read, it states:



Most of the world was either near normal or warmer than normal. Eastern Europe, Russia, the Arctic, and the Antarctic Peninsula were exceptionally warm (1.5 to 3.5 degrees Celsius above average). The temperature in the United States in 2008 was not much different than the 1951-1980 mean, which makes 2008 cooler than all of the previous years this decade. Large areas of the central and eastern Pacific Ocean were cooler than the long-term average, linked to a La Niña episode that began in 2007. (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?%20id=7487)
[emphasis mine]


The article goes on to say, (remember, this is Alpha's supporting article, not mine) that:




Given the range of uncertainty in the measurements, the GISS team concluded that 2008 was somewhere between the seventh and the tenth warmest year on record. (The 10 warmest years have all occurred within the 12-year period from 1997-2008.)
[emphasis mine]


And the pièce de résistance:


"Even this five-year average shows that climate has ups and downs, but the long-term increase in global average surface temperatures is obvious." [emphasis mine]

I think it is amusing that this poster provides a link which doesn't support his/her position but in fact, supports my mine.

[ryangti]

Yes tell that to Australia now facing severe bush fires and scorching temps.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24951318-421,00.html
I guess it now depends on where you live?

[raphnix]

This is what the fact I know for now that could be obvious.
"Temperature changes every season, regardless of how high or low they are."

[Goldmoon]

Decreasing in some areas, because everthings all fucked.

[Glacial Ridge]

quote Alpha>What we're saying is this COULD be the start of a serious cold spell and if you look at the average temps in the last 150 years there were spikes of high temps like we've seen in the last 50 years that just as suddenly drop to low temps the like they saw in the 1600's when every river in the UK and Europe froze!<

That's right Alpha, we can see over just a couple of years what difference in the lack of the suns output has already accomplished with more mixed colder temps. This year the sun should begin producing some spots and hopefully not contribute too much toward that GW thing.

The little round speck is Earth, just in case you didn't know.
http://sci.esa.int/science-e-media/img/75/i_screenimage_30581.jpg

Now that's some GLOBAL WARMING!

[alpha]

cheers Glacial....

and i said on another thread I really don't know why other areas are getting scorched. Especially, is it Eastern or Western Antarctic and of course Ozzietralia. But thanks to Glacial and others that MAY be due to the core heat expellation, you know, those things called VOLCANOS.

However, despite your valid pointers Freaked Out, the overall picture is a COOLER YEAR in 2008: FACT! i love it when YOU lot think they have something on me; i do read the whole flippin thing you know.

despite the hot areas; namely those poor old smiling Ozzies, we have on average a cooler year and a SHARP decline. That IS significant.

Glacial, your graphs are spot on man; the spikes look so familiar. It really depends on when cycle 24 starts. Surely everyone can see this. It's plain as flippin day !!!!

how long does it take for us to dip in to one of those galactic spirals: hmmmm would that be 11,000 years? are we nearly there; i wonder!!

night night everyone from your friendly 210lb, 6ft 2", mountaineering Yorkshireman!

:afro:
:jam:
:pirate:
:bounce:
:bounce:
:bounce:
:humpin:
:bondage:

[Tired Old Man]

Point of view.

I guess it all might depend on where you are and your point of view.
For me this year is very cold here in Florida. Kind of like when I was growing up here back in the 70's. It was cold back then !
I find it amazing that we try to use what little information we have on weather and predict what is going to happen. Way to many things to add or understand for us at this time. But I can tell you this Freaked Out.

Baby it's cold outside.

[lazserus]

this didn't seem to stop the scientists who went to the UN with their 'man made climate change' rhetoric.

and if their findings are over the 10 year baseline consider Those Findings are also part of the Current Baseline for Solar Activity, which the Man Made Climate Change group seems to be doing their best to ignore.

an ENTIRE FIELD of scientific study Rejected beause the findingd Were Too Difficult to Reconcile with the Man Made Climate Change chimera.
This is very serious and proponents of man-made global warming prefer to just pass over the data than to scrutinize it. The problem is that there's so much available data and the Al Gore "cult" refuses to spend the time or energy to reconciliate the anomalies. Part of the reason they choose not to is they're afraid of being wrong (which they would find out if they'd scrutinize).


Sorry but all the evidence points that global temperatures are slowly rising on the long run. Not lowering.
There is just no evidence to suggest that this trent is on the verge of reversing itself.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest the warming trend is leading to a larger cooling phase. Scientific logic alone in the areas of climatology, palaeoclimatology, geology, and palaeontology supports the mechanism. I'm not talking Ice Age cold, but damned close. Amateurs constantly misrepresent the data because they don't understand climate mechanisms. Yes, plural: mechanisms. People like Protostar are content on believing solar behavior alone drives Earth's climate. This is so far from truth it's basically a blatant lie. We can't rule out solar behavior in climate shift, however solar physicists still haven't figured out with any real certainty the sun's role in climate. There are hypotheses floating around, but few wideley accepted theories with real experimental data exist. I can give you half a dozen working theories on prehistoric climate shift without ever plugging solar activity in. The point I'm trying to make is you guys keep thinking linearly. The world doesn't function on a straight line, or in 2 dimensions.


The heat that the planets receive van the sun is relatively constant. And does not suddenly drop or rise within 2 year time.
Then how do you explain record breaking low temperatures just two years after record breaking high temperatures? And you have to understand how the sun transfers energy to the planets before you can make such a claim with any authority. You can't think of the sun like burning embers and the planets as your fingers moving to and fro the heat.


Because there are a lot more factors that control the climate on planets than just solar cycles.
Like orbit, atmosphere and even ground colour.
I remove you from that list I mentioned above about thinking linearly about climate. You're absolutely right when saying this. And there's a laundry list of other factors to add to this such as current stability, ocean salinity, number of certain types of plant species, the rate at which we cut down trees, the frequency of wild fires, the beetle population...Savvy?


You simply cant just look at the sun alone and predict that there is going to be a record breaking winter just by looking at the sun.
Just the same you can't look at it and say we're on an absolute warming trend.


Is this a long term trend, the present cooling period? Solar physicists around the world would like to know.
Exactly! There's no doubt that solar activity plays a role in climate, we're just not sure how. The role it plays could very well be negligible.

[Mezurashi]

I just remembered something again, this flash came up some weeks or up to 2 months ago, and it has to do with Global Atmospheric Humidity Averages.

does anyone remember when there were many questions being asked about the effects of the warming trend on the actual level of humidity in our atmosphere? this would have been about 2 - 4 years ago, didn't linger long and was soon overtaken by other issues (like methane emissions from permafrost melt).

I ask this because the concern at the time was How Much Mass was added to the System (atmospheric currents, planetary rotation, albedo changes and everything else that contributes in a big way to the way air moves around the globe) and if this would affect the 'profiles' for heat exchange and absorption, storm severity and even stuff like the generalized ionization of the atmosphere - not about lightning but more subtle stuff that isn't flashy.

getting away from the various factors and pointing fingers and such - it comes down to ...

Does ANYONE Really think we can Change what's happening even with our best efforts?

more and more I've been hearing the idea that we're already too far gone to do anything about it from climatologists and environmental scientists, not in a big way but inserted into lectures and documentaries about the whole meghilla. and they're Not implying that we might as well keep going on as before, far from it, but maybe we should start thinking about What We're Going To Do To Adapt.

Cleaning up our act is terribly important, you get no argument from me on that point. I will forego the whole 'why' issue because we're in a burning house - we don't have the leisure to argue about How the fire started anymore and Knowing the Answer would not make an iota of difference given what sems to be happening around the globe.

methane outgassing is now bad enough that mainstream media has noticed it. Western Antarctica is showing signs of warming. the sun's acting weird. CO2 outgassing from volcano's worldwide is also on the rise.

and Humidity is one of the Biggest Greenhouse Factors there is ...

so I'm concerned about Humidity now ... once again I ask, does anyone remember this issue? and has there been some happy news?

[Nasik]

There is plenty of evidence to suggest the warming trend is leading to a larger cooling phase. Scientific logic alone in the areas of climatology, palaeoclimatology, geology, and palaeontology supports the mechanism.


Please provide some links. I would be most interested to read this surfiet of evidence you claim exists. I'm thinking about shifts in our current climate - and while on a much larger scale I don't doubt what you're saying, I do think the climate models and annedoctal evidence should give one pause about what's going on right now.




Exactly! There's no doubt that solar activity plays a role in climate, we're just not sure how. The role it plays could very well be negligible


I agree with this statement.

[alpha]

i find it utterly amazing that people think the Sun's role in our climate is negligible.

i can't believe any human being with an ounce of sense can think this way.

unless you still believe the Earth is the centre of the Universe!!

we live in a Solar system, that should give you a clue!

it's a flippin great magnet, the biggest magnet in our system. We orbit round the Sun.

we get our HEAT from the Sun, nowhere else.

no matter how much you fart, belch, burn fuel, cut down trees; absolutely none of these activities will increase temperatures!

THERE IS A GREENHOUSE EFFECT AND WE ADD TO IT!

IF THE SUN'S OUTPUT REDUCES SO DOES THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT!

IF THE SUN'S OUTPUT INCREASES SO DOES THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT!

can it be any more simpler!

anyone who does not see the correlation has been blinded by Gore and the WHOLE manmade bullshit brigade!!

it's an absolute travesty!

wake up and smell the 100% arabica!

how many more facts do you want!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????? ???????????

[lycanox]

Things are far from that simple..

Take for instance Mercury and Venus.

Venus is nearly twice as far of the sun as Mercury is. And only receives 25% of the amount of solar energy Mercury receives.
Despise this, the temperatures of Venus can variate between 450°C and 480°C. And is still hotter than Mercury, which variates between 420°C and -220°C.

This difference is completely the result of the greenhouse effect on Venus.

[Mezurashi]

well, for those who like to hear from the world's climatologists ...


A team of environmental researchers in the US has warned many effects of climate change are irreversible.

The scientists concluded global temperatures could remain high for 1,000 years, even if carbon emissions can somehow be halted.

Their report was sponsored by the US Department of Energy and comes as President Obama announces a review of vehicle emission standards.

It appears in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

link to article - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7852628.stm

so, to all those who think what we're doing will Stop Climate Change ... or even have an effect ...

[alpha]

Things are far from that simple..

Take for instance Mercury and Venus.

Venus is nearly twice as far of the sun as Mercury is. And only receives 25% of the amount of solar energy Mercury receives.
Despise this, the temperatures of Venus can variate between 450°C and 480°C. And is still hotter than Mercury, which variates between 420°C and -220°C.

This difference is completely the result of the greenhouse effect on Venus.

ok...

i have to check this out; has to be volcanic or core activity causing such a high surface temp. Or space weather or x or y or z.

as i've said greenhouse effect is real, we add to it. Heat comes from within too! at the moment, a hell of a lot it would seem. That would explain Venus too.

but....

i need an eminent scientist to corroborate!

think about this though:

what if: in the times where the Sun is quiet (LIKE NOW) the Earth reacts accordingly and expells heat. and, at the times where the Earth can't expell any more and the Sun is shut down too, then bingo bango: ICE AGE!

also, we simply don't know how the Planet(s) react to Cosmic Rays. On some it could fuel storms, if the Planet in question has a protective atmosphere and magnetosphere or conversely if it doesn't it super-heats the surface.

so i would say your answer is not that simple either!

[Nasik]

well, for those who like to hear from the world's climatologists ...



link to article - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7852628.stm

so, to all those who think what we're doing will Stop Climate Change ... or even have an effect ...

Ms. Solomon doesn't recommend we do nothing, on the contrary, she said to AP: "Climate change is slow, but it is unstoppable" — all the more reason to act quickly, so the long-term situation doesn't get even worse."

Susan Solomon (and also a lead scientist at the IPCC) concluded in this recent report sponsored by the DOE:



...if CO2 is allowed to peak at 450-600 parts per million, the results would include persistent decreases in dry-season rainfall that are comparable to the 1930s North American Dust Bowl in zones including southern Europe, northern Africa, southwestern North America, southern Africa and western Australia.


AP article http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hMRqVHPx5vcRCKXVKbFlnKZrVJOQD95V4HBG0

[Mezurashi]

Ms. Solomon doesn't recommend we do nothing, on the contrary, she said to AP: "Climate change is slow, but it is unstoppable" — all the more reason to act quickly, so the long-term situation doesn't get even worse."

Susan Solomon (and also a lead scientist at the IPCC) concluded in this recent report sponsored by the DOE:



AP article http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hMRqVHPx5vcRCKXVKbFlnKZrVJOQD95V4HBG0

no argument from me on this one -- I was just putting this out there so we 'might' hear less 'Save The Planet Stop Climate Change' rhetoric from the masses.

my point is, as always, the Lashback when people who Thought they were' Stopping Climate Change have to wake up to the realization that we aren't Stopping Anything .. we're just trying to slow down the acceleration ...

how many people would continue to even Try if they knew the boulder is going to fall off the cliff no matter what we do? yes I agree that we need to do Something For Ourselves -- but is it worth the potential cost of having the whole thing blow up because the masses suddenly realize they've been Lied To and that they swallowed it hook, line and sinker?

anyway - fighting the urge to go spree shopping has become my morning exercise routine, lol

[olddragon]

Saturday's high temp in Green Bay sets record for June 6 (http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090606/GPG0101/90606042/1261/GPG05/Weather++Record+temperature+set+in+Green+Bay+Satur day)
f it seemed cold to you in Green Bay on Saturday, it was.
The high temperature for the day, reached at 9:50 a.m., was 52. That set a record for the lowest high temperature for June 6, according to the National Weather Service office in Ashwaubenon.


Snow falls in western ND, in June (http://www.kxmc.com/News/386720.asp)
Snow has fallen in Dickinson in June, the first time in nearly 60 years the city has seen snow past May.
National Weather Service meteorologist Janine Vining in Bismarck says there were unofficial reports of a couple of inches of snow in Dickinson on Saturday.
http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg103/o1ddragon/bk.jpg

[lycanox]

We however, had one of the warmest springs (http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.knmi.nl%2Fcms%2Fconte nt%2F56811%2Flente_2009_zacht_zonnig_en_droog&sl=nl&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8) in on records.
And those global cooling scientist have yet to explain why glaciers are residing worldwide.

[Singularity]

We had an average spring which seems to be leading into a summer with slightly below average temperatures here in the Pacific Northwest. We saw record breaking snowfall as well this year, but fortunately the season didn't extend beyond normal.

Last year pretty much sucked as we effectively had a winter that ran all year long with the exception of half of June, July, and the first half of August. We had two inches of snow on June 11, but it warmed up to slightly below average temperatures after that.

My concern isn't that the world is warming, but that weather patterns will become more extreme and unpredictable.

[olddragon]

It has been pretty cool and wet on the south east coast.

[MaximumPain]

http://i377.photobucket.com/albums/oo216/JFLLive/ostrich_head_in_ground.jpg

The Al Gore crowd

Ummm no you guys are the ones denying there is a problem not the so called Al Gore crowd. That pic should be for you as you have your head in the ground. What you need is a "the sky is falling" pic.

And global temperature is a trend involving the entire world over a period of years not a single event. So come back in 5 years or so and tell us its getting cooler. You sound like the local radio idiots who will say something like "Its cold today well that disproves global warming".

[Singularity]

Ummm no you guys are the ones denying there is a problem not the so called Al Gore crowd. That pic should be for you as you have your head in the ground. What you need is a "the sky is falling" pic.

And global temperature is a trend involving the entire world over a period of years not a single event. So come back in 5 years or so and tell us its getting cooler. You sound like the local radio idiots who will say something like "Its cold today well that disproves global warming".

Just so we're clear, I acknowledge that temperatures have been cooler the past couple years and that this is likely tied to sunspots and the sun's overall temperatures, but I still very definitely believe in the science theorizing global warming. Fucking with an atmosphere that is friendly to human life is not an intelligent way of ensuring our future.

[Goldmoon]

Singularity: My concern isn't that the world is warming, but that weather patterns will become more extreme and unpredictable.

Well said, man.

Its different everywhere, there are more extremes now.

For example:
-This winter, we had the latest and most intense snowfall on record.
-This spring, we had the earliest and hottest temperatures ever recorded.
(One extreme to another, very quick changes.)

Instead of "Global Warming", it could be called: "Global Weather F&$@ing Around"

But in my own research and belief, we will see a warming trend overall in the long run with more fires, droughts, and rising sea levels.

[MetalMilitia]

http://www.eclipptv.com/files/photos/05f971b5ec196b8L.gif

Dunno how accurate it is, but that was posted everywhere yesterday.

http://revolutionarypolitics.com/?p=1107

[Protostar]

Look at the graph. You can bet your bottom dollar that earth's orbit and the solar system's orbital path is directly responsible.
Moving closer to "hot spots" and moving away as well as the sun moving
away and positioning itself closer to our planet as we travel through the galactic plane.
Right now, an "unknown" mechanism or switch has been thrown on the sun. During a "magnetic pole change" something happened.
< think it's leaking hydrogen, like a small hole in a balloon> and the
poles did not complete their change. So, you have a sun who's
magnetic properties are "haywire" and unusually INACTIVE.

The sun "powers" our planet through the heat convection system.
There has been a change in the Solar Rays to this planet.
The core of Earth is very "heat sensative" to these changes.

The entire stability of earths eco system is generated by the core.
The core releases heat through vents. Volcanic, Underwater vents and
through any means that it can. Heat rises. The core has been cooling for millions of years. It get's overheated sometimes due to the super solar and space "energy" that it receives through gas and rays..

Heating up the atmosphere. Then this disappates and cooler air is generated. Swinging temps! But underneath, the giant furnace rages on.
extra solar radiation being received by the core makes things heat up more. Tectonic plates glide and slide because of the heating of the
"sticky" stuff that adheres the plate to the crust.

GLACIERS are growing, Lycanox investigate the himalayas will ya.
Also, refer to DRUMLINS...This is the mechanism that moves the glaciers forward.. they melt from underneath to make them more fluid for movement.

The slow geological creep of time sometimes suddenly get's a geological /astrological bump. some stellar "situation" happens and
then WHAM, BAM. Rapid climate change.

The planet will protect itself at all costs.
The sun has already powered down or had a Rapid Climate Change
telling US that we are next.

[lycanox]

GLACIERS are growing, Lycanox investigate the himalayas will ya.
Also, refer to DRUMLINS...This is the mechanism that moves the glaciers forward.. they melt from underneath to make them more fluid for movement. Proof please. All respectable sources I saw claim that they are receding. And have pictures to proof it.

[BLOODLINES]

wow the great debate still rages on I see...

(((newsflash)))

only time will tell folk's, the only reason any of us know about this subject at all is because "THEY" told us.

Think about it.

Anymore I think it's pretty funny::p:

[olddragon]

Canada frosts the most widespread in recent memory (http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE55851U20090609)

In Manitoba, the frost is the worst in memory for its frequency and area covered, said Derwyn Hammond, the province's senior agronomy specialist for the Canola Council.

"Certainly (it's) the worst year I've seen," said Hammond, who has worked for the Canola Council for 15 years.

I hate the cold :burnin:

[BLOODLINES]

Canada frosts the most widespread in recent memory (http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE55851U20090609)


I hate the cold :burnin:

So does Al Gore. and the ICPP, "I see pee pee" or is it the IPCC. Oh hell I can't even remember what that farce is called.

[TC]

Last night we had ( Sweden) the coldest June temperature on record. ( 125 years ) Frigid polar air has been pressing down for the last 3 weeks, giving day temperatures of 9C and down to 3 C in the evenings with frost.

Along with this cold air is an increase in rain for the average, and the growing season has been shortened by 3 weeks. I believe we will see this more often over the coming years, as well as an increase in the polar ice fields.

We have been tricked by a media campaign that has created a market for so called "green" products, and this has lined the pockets for everyone connected with it,......right down from the producers to the has been politicians that started this circus to boost voter popularity.

Someday, this joke will be viewed in the same light as a flat world.

[lycanox]

One cold summer does not mean the whole world is cooling down.

How come that when it comes to global warming, that all the evidence in the world is not enough to convince people that the world is warming.
Yet they believe that because we have one colder year. That the world is going to cool down.

Or is it that everybody is just picking the laziest and cheapest option.
Guess we have to wait until another big disaster happens before the world realizes that we cant just ignore the problem. Even if it global warming isn't man made.

[Protostar]

I know you've read ECIII and theres a note to you lycanox.

We've been sharing info for years and posted links, if you don't get it by now then you wont. The bottom line is believe what you SEE
not what you are being spoon fed.

Green is gone. White is the new green and everybody will "get it" sooner or later because the storms will get worse and everyone will be affected.

oh,
and as history has "told us" we are RIPE FOR THE PANDEMIC because it'
always preceeded the ccccold..

[Glacial Ridge]

I agree Alpha, it took some mega solar cycles to heat the planet over a period of 50 years or so. Now we are seeing the reverse. Atmosphere cools, surface cools, oceans cool. Still the outer core will take some time, but like MM's post implies when the contractions come we will know.
The heliosphere is contracting as well, while we enter interstellar G cloud which they have been telling us for years that it is more dense than the Local interstellar cloud. Within each interstellar cloud there are cloudletts and varying density pockets this they know. (may account for MM's humpy graph) But they have stated all along that our neighboring G cloud is denser.

[BotchedToad]

Interesting to note from the graph, depending on it's accuracy, how each succeeding cold epoch appears more intense. Also WHO is meeting tomorrow to decide whether to raise the pandemic level to 6.

[TC]

One cold summer does not mean the whole world is cooling down.

How come that when it comes to global warming, that all the evidence in the world is not enough to convince people that the world is warming.
Yet they believe that because we have one colder year. That the world is going to cool down.

Or is it that everybody is just picking the laziest and cheapest option.
Guess we have to wait until another big disaster happens before the world realizes that we cant just ignore the problem. Even if it global warming isn't man made.


Umm, this is the third in a row... and it broke the all time record for the coldest ( 125 years) so I wouldn't call it the "lazy" option for climate.

[Goldmoon]

Where are these people seeing cold summers? Because from what I have seen, its been getting hotter.

Lets find a graph here, and find out the truth once and for all..

[lycanox]

Umm, this is the third in a row... and it broke the all time record for the coldest ( 125 years) so I wouldn't call it the "lazy" option for climate.

So.. Our spring came in as the second warmest in 100 years time.

[TC]

Average rain fall has increased, as well as colder growing seasons in the northern hemisphere. This is a direct result of evaporation and precipitation from the sea.

The planet has been far warmer than today in the past, and the finite workings of the worlds oceans took care of any increases. Tree ring and ice data shows this check and balance process has worked during the interglacial warming periods, and continues right into the next ice age.

This current warming period ( late pleistocene /early Holocene) is at its apex, and the turn towards a colder climate and an eventual ice age is the natural rhythm that has continued over the past 400,000 years.

If you look at past geological records, they plainly show this repetitious cycle to be a fact, and we weren't around to influence those previous warming periods, which had temperature levels that exceeded this current one.

Its solar cycles that run this rhythmic machine...always has been. ( albeit the hot air of political babble has probably played a part...

[lycanox]

Yes, but I doubt that just a couple of cold years at some locations mean that the warming trend has suddenly changed.
We have had much colder years decades ago and that didn't change the warming trend as well.

[BLOODLINES]

Yes, but I doubt that just a couple of cold years at some locations mean that the warming Trent has suddenly changed.
We have had much colder years decades ago and that didn't change the warming Trent as well.

Who in the hell is this guy named Trent?

Who in the hell put him in charge of the weather, actually I think this (Trent) fella should be fired---Obama. need's to take care of this guy too.

Trent---Finally we know who has fouled up all the weather.::p:

[TC]

Yes, but I doubt that just a couple of cold years at some locations mean that the warming trend has suddenly changed.
We have had much colder years decades ago and that didn't change the warming trend as well.

Obviously we are talking about the end of this warming period that started some 20,000 years ago, rather than short term spikes on some chart. If you look at the records ( ice core) you will see the average of both glacial and interglacial warming. These sequences run on 100,000 year intervals ( glacial ice ages) with roughly 20,000 year warming periods. So we know this particular warming sequence is more or less finished.

Its all there in the geological records, its just a matter of mind set as to how you wish to view all this. Its seems a little short sighted to place mans actions as a predominant cause in an otherwise proven natural sequence of events.

You have to admit that the climate change band wagon was popular to adhere to, almost mandatory.

[lycanox]

I am not discussing whether or not GW is man made.
I just don't see any indication that it is over.

And the idea of it being overdue does not mean that it is going to happen any time now. It could just as easily stay another 100 years overdue. The geological records do not give an prediction that is on the decade accurate.

[tim299]

Obviously we are talking about the end of this warming period that started some 20,000 years ago, rather than short term spikes on some chart. If you look at the records ( ice core) you will see the average of both glacial and interglacial warming. These sequences run on 100,000 year intervals ( glacial ice ages) with roughly 20,000 year warming periods. So we know this particular warming sequence is more or less finished.

Its all there in the geological records, its just a matter of mind set as to how you wish to view all this. Its seems a little short sighted to place mans actions as a predominant cause in an otherwise proven natural sequence of events.

You have to admit that the climate change band wagon was popular to adhere to, almost mandatory.


this is truth here. I 100% agree with short on this. Of course, the money wagon that is GW will not stop. :probe:

[lycanox]

Offcource will that money wagon not stop.
Ignoring the problem will result in severe problems that could lead to the death of millions if left alone. And we need money to prepare for these problems.

[Goldmoon]

Lycanox: It could just as easily stay another 100 years overdue.

I give it 15 years max, then no life will be able to survive on this planet. I don't think many people understand the concept of exponential increase.

[tim299]

You GW people have your heads so far up your asses you can't seem to understand the natural cycles of this planet. As humans we don't live long enough to experience anything major in climate fluxes. Yet, in the next 10-20 years, the ice caps are going to melt, the sea level will rise to flood al major coastal cities (I am all for that actually), and we will not be able to survive. i guess California will just crack off the coast of the US also in a day (although geologically impossible). Pull your head out of your ass, please.

[lycanox]

You GW people have your heads so far up your asses you can't seem to understand the natural cycles of this planet. As humans we don't live long enough to experience anything major in climate fluxes. Yet, in the next 10-20 years, the ice caps are going to melt, the sea level will rise to flood al major coastal cities (I am all for that actually), and we will not be able to survive. i guess California will just crack off the coast of the US also in a day (although geologically impossible). Pull your head out of your ass, please.
A warmer climate will result in stronger storms.
Which threaten low laying areas like the Netherlands, Bangladesh, new York and New Orleans. Which need or increase their water defenses.
Droughts are going to increase, requiring advanced irrigation projects in Africa, Central America and India.
Tropical pests are going to spread northwards. While valuable cold loving plants are going to be harder to produce. Putting a strain on farming.

All these problems require planning and money in advance to deal with them.
You cant simply wait until new York is drowned and then start building dams to protect it.

So perhaps it is you that should pull his head out his ass.

[tim299]

Yep, you put the right word in at the end...MONEY!!!! Get it?

[olddragon]

All these problems require planning and money in advance to deal with them.
You cant simply wait until new York is drowned and then start building dams to protect it.
Why build a dam?
Ice ages will freeze more water and lower sea level.

[Goldmoon]

Global warming is obviously not a hoax, since its happening.

What happens when the world becomes one, and factories pump out smoke, as well as blankets of billions of cars covering every continent from tip to tip, worldwide burning fossil fuels all day and night, constantly all the time?

This is the time that the prophets spoke of where mankind would have the ability to destroy the Earth.

This happens on most planets with chimera species such as humans who have high intelligence and little wisdom.

These humans on this Earth have been engineered with advanced DNA which does not match their developmental duration, therefore their intelligence exceeds their wisdom, only part of the brain is used, and most of this species are encompassed by primitive emotions.

You may look at yourself differenly after knowing this, but we are not meant to be by nature.

[tim299]

If I knew a way to drown New York, i would do it. We need something to clean the scum up.

[lycanox]

Just shut down the pomps that manage the groundwater level in the city during a storm.
In a couple of hours. The underground streams would have drowned the subway system.
In 48 hours the city would turn into a second Venice.

[TC]

well back to topic....

One thing that the GW crowd forget in this wondrous machine is the effect of fresh water into the gulf stream. The less salinity, the less the effect of warm water transfer to the northern hemisphere. We have gone through several mini ice ages in the past due to a shut down in this system, and the results were almost instantaneous on the European weather system with years of frigid winters and minimal growing periods.

The increased precipitation from sea water evaporation is part of this, as well as reduced glacial ice pack. What all this represents is the oceans reaction towards warmer temperature, a sort of self fix if you will.

And as we glide towards the next ice age, this cooling system will eventually turn rain into increased snow in the northern latitudes which will in turn reflect sun light off the earths surface, further reducing global temperature.

[olddragon]

Yes, the focus for the future, should not be how to stop GW,
but how to stay warm.

[lycanox]

well back to topic....

One thing that the GW crowd forget in this wondrous machine is the effect of fresh water into the gulf stream. The less salinity, the less the effect of warm water transfer to the northern hemisphere. We have gone through several mini ice ages in the past due to a shut down in this system, and the results were almost instantaneous on the European weather system with years of frigid winters and minimal growing periods.

The increased precipitation from sea water evaporation is part of this, as well as reduced glacial ice pack. What all this represents is the oceans reaction towards warmer temperature, a sort of self fix if you will.

And as we glide towards the next ice age, this cooling system will eventually turn rain into increased snow in the northern latitudes which will in turn reflect sun light off the earths surface, further reducing global temperature.
Yes, but do you have any evidence that it is actually happening now.

After all, my country would be one of the first countries influenced by such event. Yet everything is quite hot over here.

[TC]

Unless you can drop the GW mentality for 5 min., you wouldn't see the evidence to the contrary.


The most dramatic evidence emerged with an announcement by Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory that an immense slow-cycling movement of water in the Pacific, known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), had unexpectedly shifted into its cool phase, something which only happens every 30 years or so, ultimately affecting climate all over the globe

There is word that all four major global temperature tracking outlets have released data showing that temperatures have dropped significantly over the last year. The amount of cooling ranges from 65-hundredths of a degree Centigrade to 75-hundreds of a degree.

That is said to be a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. It is reportedly the single fastest temperature change ever recorded — up or down.

Scientists contend the cooling is the result of reduced solar activity — which they say is a larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases.

[BotchedToad]

Here in the midwest (iowa) it's been 3 + weeks now that temp's have been a very mild mid 70's. Used to dream of that when I was growing up as the jump from winter to summer seemed short-lived. Three years ago I remember from the 1st day of June on, it was 90 + and stayed there the rest of Summer. They're saying it might reach 80 sometime next week. Just unreal imho.

[olddragon]

So far, June's chill is one for the records (http://weblogs.wgntv.com/chicago-weather/tom-skilling-blog/2009/06/chilly-junes-2009-open-one-for-2.html)

The cloudy, chilly and rainy open to June here has been the talk of the town. So far this June is running more than 12 degrees cooler than last year, and the clouds, rain and chilly lake winds have been persistent. The average temperature at O'Hare International Airport through Friday has been only 59.5 degrees: nearly 7 degrees below normal and the coldest since records there began 50 years ago.

More bad weather is on the way Saturday with a cold rain expected to linger through the bulk of the morning. Rainfall could be heavy -- especially north of the city, which would be a reversal of Thursday's deluge that targeted the southern suburbs.
Crops under stress as temperatures fall (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5525933/Crops-under-stress-as-temperatures-fall.html)
Our politicians haven't noticed that the problem may be that the world is not warming but cooling, observes Christopher Booker.

For the second time in little over a year, it looks as though the world may be heading for a serious food crisis, thanks to our old friend "climate change". In many parts of the world recently the weather has not been too brilliant for farmers. After a fearsomely cold winter, June brought heavy snowfall across large parts of western Canada and the northern states of the American Midwest. In Manitoba last week, it was -4ºC. North Dakota had its first June snow for 60 years.

There was midsummer snow not just in Norway and the Cairngorms, but even in Saudi Arabia. At least in the southern hemisphere it is winter, but snowfalls in New Zealand and Australia have been abnormal. There have been frosts in Brazil, elsewhere in South America they have had prolonged droughts, while in China they have had to cope with abnormal rain and freak hailstorms, which in one province killed 20 people.

None of this has given much cheer to farmers. In Canada and northern America summer planting of corn and soybeans has been way behind schedule, with the prospect of reduced yields and lower quality. Grain stocks are predicted to be down 15 per cent next year. US reserves of soya – used in animal feed and in many processed foods – are expected to fall to a 32-year low.

In China, the world's largest wheat grower, they have been battling against the atrocious weather to bring in the harvest. (In one province they even fired chemical shells into the clouds to turn freezing hailstones into rain.) In north-west China drought has devastated crops with a plague of pests and blight. In countries such as Argentina and Brazil droughts have caused such havoc that a veteran US grain expert said last week: "In 43 years I've never seen anything like the decline we're looking at in South America."

In Europe, the weather has been a factor in well-below average predicted crop yields in eastern Europe and Ukraine. In Britain this year's oilseed rape crop is likely to be 30 per cent below its 2008 level. And although it may be too early to predict a repeat of last year's food shortage, which provoked riots from west Africa to Egypt and Yemen, it seems possible that world food stocks may next year again be under severe strain, threatening to repeat the steep rises which, in 2008, saw prices double what they had been two years before.

I guess this will get me more Neg. from those with their heads up Al Gore's Ass.

[tim299]

People have routines so they expect Earth to follow a set patter of routine. Unfortunately, earth does not follow any set routine and there can be much variation of climate year to year. Temperature average and rainfall averages are exactly that, averages. I get so sick of hearing people saying things should be like this and that, when they shouldn't.

[lycanox]

Unless you can drop the GW mentality for 5 min., you wouldn't see the evidence to the contrary.

The most dramatic evidence emerged with an announcement by Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory that an immense slow-cycling movement of water in the Pacific, known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), had unexpectedly shifted into its cool phase, something which only happens every 30 years or so, ultimately affecting climate all over the globe

There is word that all four major global temperature tracking outlets have released data showing that temperatures have dropped significantly over the last year. The amount of cooling ranges from 65-hundredths of a degree Centigrade to 75-hundreds of a degree.

That is said to be a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. It is reportedly the single fastest temperature change ever recorded — up or down.

Scientists contend the cooling is the result of reduced solar activity — which they say is a larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases.
And how do we know that this effect is permanent. And that we aren't back to a warming trend in a couple of years?

[olddragon]

And how do we know that this effect is permanent. And that we aren't back to a warming trend in a couple of years?

How do you know it is not?

I will say nothing is permanent, everything changes.

Just like the climate warms and then it cools, been doing that for millions of years.

[Tired Old Man]

How do you know it is not?

I will say nothing is permanent, everything changes.

Just like the climate warms and then it cools, been doing that for millions of years.

Trying to predict the weather is like trying to answer a woman when she ask,
Does this dress make my ass look to big ?
No matter what you say you could be wrong.

[Tired Old Man]

I just want to say I apologize to any and all women with big butts.
It's been a long day and I'm kind of tired.
I know big butts and weather have nothing in common.
Unless you answer the question wrong.
Then your in for one Hell of a storm....

[TC]

And how do we know that this effect is permanent. And that we aren't back to a warming trend in a couple of years?

So by your statement you agree this effect is happening.... good.

If so, then you understand why the earth has its checks and balance to take care of itself....regardless of what we may do, or not do. And our impute is so minimal that it hardly touches the scale.

Its based on solar effect.... and completely natural.

[Big Pies]

I live in N.Z at the bottom of it and we are have just gone into winter and where I live we have a 2 snow days already .We wou;d'nt normally get then till latre July- August.All of the Ski Fields have opened earlier this year due cold weather , snow or good snow making conditions .Will post links soon

[alpha]

Unless you can drop the GW mentality for 5 min., you wouldn't see the evidence to the contrary.


The most dramatic evidence emerged with an announcement by Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory that an immense slow-cycling movement of water in the Pacific, known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), had unexpectedly shifted into its cool phase, something which only happens every 30 years or so, ultimately affecting climate all over the globe

There is word that all four major global temperature tracking outlets have released data showing that temperatures have dropped significantly over the last year. The amount of cooling ranges from 65-hundredths of a degree Centigrade to 75-hundreds of a degree.

That is said to be a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. It is reportedly the single fastest temperature change ever recorded — up or down.

Scientists contend the cooling is the result of reduced solar activity — which they say is a larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases.

Yet more proof cooling is happening. Cheers for that Shortround

what more do you want ? blood!?

aren't the NASA graphs enough to prove to you that over the last 2 years temps have rapidly decreased?

question is what is keeping us so warm in certain areas, where is the heat coming from if it's not coming from the Sun?

IMO I am with Protostar on this one and it's new to most i would say:

1. Volcanic activity, heat rising from cracks in the crust

2. cosmic energies entering the now weakened atmosphere (and NOT weakened by CO2 or manmade gases thank you very much!)

the Sun's protective grip has lessened therefore the Earth's protective shield (the magnetosphere) has weakened letting in far more cosmic energy including remnants of major gamma ray bursts from nearby galaxies.

it's warm in the UK this week, warm and humid. well that would be typical summer and a very favourable jet stream, that will change as always and we will see freak weather no doubt. Cold / Hot wild fluctuations everywhere for the foreseeable future.

BUT IT AINT MANMADE FOR FUCKS SAKE!!!!!

if the core stops expelling heat we WILL freeze in the current Sun minimum status!

[MaximumPain]

Should all these climate change threads be in the conspiracy section? After all the argument is based on a giant conspiracy by Al Gore and a bunch of scientists who seem to claim that man can have an effect on our climate through the massive release of green house gasses. And on the other side we have people claiming its all a lie so that they can get funding? Sounds like you believe its a giant conspiracy that the climate change scientists are all lying and covering for each other. While you PHDs here are showing us the real facts. After all if its been getting cooler for a couple of years then that just throws out all those silly scientists and their ice core data and CO2 in the atmosphere readings and all that. Im so glad we have you doctors of climate science to set it all straight.

[Nasik]

Unless you can drop the GW mentality for 5 min., you wouldn't see the evidence to the contrary.


The most dramatic evidence emerged with an announcement by Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory that an immense slow-cycling movement of water in the Pacific, known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), had unexpectedly shifted into its cool phase, something which only happens every 30 years or so, ultimately affecting climate all over the globe

There is word that all four major global temperature tracking outlets have released data showing that temperatures have dropped significantly over the last year. The amount of cooling ranges from 65-hundredths of a degree Centigrade to 75-hundreds of a degree.

That is said to be a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. It is reportedly the single fastest temperature change ever recorded — up or down.

Scientists contend the cooling is the result of reduced solar activity — which they say is a larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases.

I wish to begin with your comments regarding the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which was very interesting. I managed to find what I believe to be the NASA press release (provided below), and think that the following comments, taken from that release, are also important:



“The comings and goings of El Niño, La Niña and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation are part of a longer, ongoing change in global climate,” said Josh Willis, a JPL oceanographer and climate scientist. Sea level rise and global warming due to increases in greenhouse gases can be strongly affected by large natural climate phenomenon such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the El Nino-Southern Oscillation. “In fact,” said Willis, “these natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.”

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008-066

I include this excerpt from the same release because it shows that NASA scientists, who gathered and interpreted the data, aren't suggesting that the PDO refutes climate change. It is meaningful to mention that ocean temperatures globally, despite the Pacific fluctuation, were "near normal or warmer" than baselines in 2008. So, despite the impacts of La Nina and the PDO, 2008 was between the 7th and 10th hottest year since 1880. (source is below)


Solar cycles have been accounted for by climate scientists studying climate change, including those that comprised the IPCC:



It is clear to those readers who have read the first 8 Myths that there are a number of factors that influence the temperature on the planet. And again, it would be hard to imagine that IPCC scientists would not have reviewed the literature about this possibility. In fact, they did so. According to IPCC findings, the warming effect due to increases of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is estimated to be more than 8 times greater than the effect of solar irradiance changes.

http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/climate-change/ten-myths.html#cc3

NASA notes that we are on prolonged cycle of solar but that it is expected to begin the new cycle shortly but it is interesting, what solar physicists conclude even if solar output continues to be low:



Solar irradiance: The solar output remains low (Fig. 4), at the lowest level in the period since satellite measurements began in the late 1970s, and the time since the prior solar minimum is already 12 years, two years longer than the prior two cycles. This has led some people to speculate that we may be entering a "Maunder Minimum" situation, a period of reduced irradiance that could last for decades. Most solar physicists expect the irradiance to begin to pick up in the next several months — there are indications, from the polarity of the few recent sunspots, that the new cycle is beginning.




However, let's assume that the solar irradiance does not recover. In that case, the negative forcing, relative to the mean solar irradiance is equivalent to seven years of CO2 increase at current growth rates. So do not look for a new "Little Ice Age" in any case. Assuming that the solar irradiance begins to recover this year, as expected, there is still some effect on the likelihood of a near-term global temperature record due to the unusually prolonged solar minimum. Because of the large thermal inertia of the ocean, the surface temperature response to the 10-12 year solar cycle lags the irradiance variation by 1-2 years. Thus, relative to the mean, i.e, the hypothetical case in which the sun had a constant average irradiance, actual solar irradiance will continue to provide a negative anomaly for the next 2-3 years.

Source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/ (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/)

I agree, there is much we don't understand about the dynamics of our planet and climate - however, I maintain faith in the experts on this issue.

[olddragon]

Sen. Inhofe Calls for Inquiry Into 'Suppressed' Climate Change Report (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/29/gop-senator-calls-inquiry-supressed-climate-change-report/)

Republicans are raising questions about why the EPA apparently dismissed an analyst's report questioning the science behind global warming.


A top Republican senator has ordered an investigation into the Environmental Protection Agency's alleged suppression of a report that questioned the science behind global warming.

The 98-page report, co-authored by EPA analyst Alan Carlin, pushed back on the prospect of regulating gases like carbon dioxide as a way to reduce global warming. Carlin's report argued that the information the EPA was using was out of date, and that even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased, global temperatures have declined.


"He came out with the truth. They don't want the truth at the EPA," Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla, a global warming skeptic, told FOX News, saying he's ordered an investigation. "We're going to expose it."

The controversy comes after the House of Representatives passed a landmark bill to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, one that Inhofe said will be "dead on arrival" in the Senate despite President Obama's energy adviser voicing confidence in the measure.

According to internal e-mails that have been made public by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Carlin's boss told him in March that his material would not be incorporated into a broader EPA finding and ordered Carlin to stop working on the climate change issue. The draft EPA finding released in April lists six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, that the EPA says threaten public health and welfare.

An EPA official told FOXNews.com on Monday that Carlin, who is an economist -- not a scientist -- included "no original research" in his report. The official said that Carlin "has not been muzzled in the agency at all," but stressed that his report was entirely "unsolicited."

"It was something that he did on his own," the official said. "Though he was not qualified, his manager indulged him and allowed him on agency time to draft up ... a set of comments."

Despite the EPA official's remarks, Carlin told FOXNews.com on Monday that his boss, National Center for Environmental Economics Director Al McGartland, appeared to be pressured into reassigning him.

Carlin said he doesn't know whether the White House intervened to suppress his report but claimed it's clear "they would not be happy about it if they knew about it," and that McGartland seemed to be feeling pressure from somewhere up the chain of command.

Carlin said McGartland told him he had to pull him off the climate change issue.

"It was reassigning you or losing my job, and I didn't want to lose my job," Carlin said, paraphrasing what he claimed were McGartland's comments to him. "My inference (was) that he was receiving some sort of higher-level pressure."

Carlin said he personally does not think there is a need to regulate carbon dioxide, since "global temperatures are going down." He said his report expressed a "good bit of doubt" on the connection between the two.

Specifically, the report noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend over the past 11 years, that scientists do not necessarily believe that storms will become more frequent or more intense due to global warming, and that the theory that temperatures will cause Greenland ice to rapidly melt has been "greatly diminished."

Carlin, in a March 16 e-mail, argued that his comments are "valid, significant" and would be critical to the EPA finding.

McGartland, though, wrote back the next day saying he had decided not to forward his comments.

"The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision," he wrote, according to the e-mails released by CEI. "I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office."

He later wrote an e-mail urging Carlin to "move on to other issues and subjects."

"I don't want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research, etc., at least until we see what EPA is going to do with climate," McGartland wrote.

The EPA said in a written statement that Carlin's opinions were in fact considered, and that he was not even part of the working group dealing with climate change in the first place.

"Claims that this individual's opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false. This administration and this EPA administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency and science-based decision making," the statement said. "The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding."

The e-mail exchanges and suggestions of political interference sparked a backlash from Republicans in Congress.

Reps. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., and Darrell Issa, R-Calif., also wrote a letter last week to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson urging the agency to reopen its comment period on the finding. The EPA has since denied the request.

Citing the internal e-mails, the Republican congressmen wrote that the EPA was exhibiting an "agency culture set in a predetermined course."

"It documents at least one instance in which the public was denied access to significant scientific literature and raises substantial questions about what additional evidence may have been suppressed," they wrote.

In a written statement, Issa said the administration is "actively seeking to withhold new data in order to justify a political conclusion."

"I'm sure it was very inconvenient for the EPA to consider a study that contradicted the findings it wanted to reach," Sensenbrenner said in a statement, adding that the "repression" of Carlin's report casts doubt on the entire finding.

Carlin said he's concerned that he's seeing "science being decided at the presidential level."


http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg103/o1ddragon/smilies/smile_twisted.gif

[Nasik]

Ahhhh, yes, the notorious Senator Inhofe - he's faithfully been among the loudest GW skeptics. I recall one instance where he claimed global warming was a conspiracy started by The Weather Channel. I've done quite a bit of research on this fellow.

I've watched Inhofe in action on C-Span as the congressional hearings were taking place following release of the last IPCC reports. He made alot of noise but he did not have the science to back him up. All of his grievances (some were seriously outlandish) were addressed by the various IPCC experts that were testifying.

Good ol' Inhofe who knows exactly where his bread is buttered - have you seen who his main campaign funders are?

Inhofe and his... of what was it again, oh the "EPA analyst" (whatever that means), would not be where I would go to get reliable opinions on this issue. :0.02:

Also, Fox News? - c'mon OD - that's not like you!:prin:

[tim299]

I am so sick of hearing about climate change. fact is "scientists" don't know shit. All they have are models and more models. Climate is as unpredictable as predicting earthquakes. Sure, we can predict the weather in the very very short term, but can't predict dick about what is going to happen in the future. Fact is temps have been decreasing and ocean temperatures are not any warmer then they have been since we started taking temperatures of the damn things. And I just read polar bears have increased in the last 30 years and are doing fine. The bullshit wheel that the global warming folks are trying to spin gets deeper and deeper and it is time the people stand up against this before they dig deep into our pockets.

[Goldmoon]

tim299: I am so sick of hearing about climate change. fact is "scientists" don't know shit. All they have are models and more models. Climate is as unpredictable as predicting earthquakes.

Humans never want to take responsibility for any actions, we choose to be ignorant because we think we're "good" and "innocent" but we're actually far from it. Humans are a destructive and vile species which are not meant to exist in nature. We fail to see ourselves through another pair of eyes, and realize what we are. Deny deny deny, is the mentality, and it is because of this, that we have got ourselves so deep in the shit. There is no coming out now, we need a saviour to get out of here, or we're shit out of luck. We won't have the technology to leave here fast enough, so without some outside help, we'll sit here to burn.


tim299: And I just read polar bears have increased in the last 30 years and are doing fine.

The temporary increase was due to enforcement of new hunting laws in those times, which allowed more of them to live and reproduce in certain areas.

But the fact is, Polar bears are not doing fine at all. Global warming is rapidly destroying any chance they may have had to survive.

I have studied polar bears and their habitats at length over the past few years, and they happen to be one of my favourite animals. Most of the polar bears can be found in the arctic regions of northern Canada, and indeed, the sea ice is not doing well up there either, let alone anywhere else.

I have spoken with a few people who are doing hands-on research, working directly with them in their own habitat, and I assure you, they are having a difficult time. They are dying off, and without hunting platforms (sea ice), they are unable to catch their main source of food, which happens to be seals, therefore they are forced to either die at sea of fatigue and starvation, or track further inland in search of food to die there. Its a very sad situation.

[TC]

Humans are a destructive and vile species which are not meant to exist in nature.

So this must put a wrench in your creation preaching huh? First you claim God created man, then you post the above statement....

Either your screwed up, or God has nothing to do with all this. Tell us Goldmoon, which one do you adhere to? ( or is it topic that makes that decision for you, and you jump on the bandwagon..)

[Protostar]

goldmoon,
I wont' debunk your studies on the polar bear IN THE PAST.
but know this, they are THRIVING.
have you not checked the ice/snow map? look at the abundance of ice in the canadian wilderness where they live. LOOK.
did you not see the north pole live noaa shots of this past week?
its' freezing and solid ice there..
it WAS in a different climate trend 2-3 years ago but it has all
changed my friend.
not now though.

And regarding humans, some of us HAVE A HEART.
we all have a good side and a bad side, this was given to us by god
who declared with the will of man.
Each individual makes decisions some good and some bad
but dont' lump me with those evil ones...
I can be a biotch...but i'm a pussy cat most of the time!

[Nasik]

I am so sick of hearing about climate change. fact is "scientists" don't know shit. All they have are models and more models. Climate is as unpredictable as predicting earthquakes. Sure, we can predict the weather in the very very short term, but can't predict dick about what is going to happen in the future. Fact is temps have been decreasing and ocean temperatures are not any warmer then they have been since we started taking temperatures of the damn things. And I just read polar bears have increased in the last 30 years and are doing fine. The bullshit wheel that the global warming folks are trying to spin gets deeper and deeper and it is time the people stand up against this before they dig deep into our pockets.

If scientists can't figure it out then what makes you think that laymen in this forum can?

[Tired Old Man]

If scientists can't figure it out then what makes you think that laymen in this forum can?

That's a very good point Freaked Out.
If scientists can't figure it out.......

[Nasik]

goldmoon,
I wont' debunk your studies on the polar bear IN THE PAST.
but know this, they are THRIVING.
have you not checked the ice/snow map? look at the abundance of ice in the canadian wilderness where they live. LOOK.
did you not see the north pole live noaa shots of this past week?
its' freezing and solid ice there..
it WAS in a different climate trend 2-3 years ago but it has all
changed my friend.
not now though.


I would be interested to read any links you may have to support these claims, links from a reputable source that is.

Your statement about polar bears is not supported by what's being reported. In fact a recent Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN18294663) article shows that the US has actually placed the polar bear on the endangered species list:


The United States officially recognized polar bears as an endangered species last year as a result of the warming Arctic climate, which has wiped out much of the summer sea ice critical to the animals' survival.

Your statement concerning the augmentation of Arctic Ice is also not supported by what is being reported by NOAA (http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/ice-seaice.shtml):



The sea ice area for the Arctic shows near-record minimums for 2002-2008. The maps below show the areas for September (shaded) relative to the median extent (purple line) based on the period 1980-2000. The recent years represent a unique event because they show a year-to-year persistence of minimum ice extents (graph below). Sea ice area is now significantly below the level of the 1980s and earlier.


I think, you'll find, by looking at the data (and feel free to write them for information or clarification, I have) the ice is continuing to steadily retreat. If there is a modest increase in ice from a record low, it doesn't indicate any breaking of the overall trend (as it was explained it me).

[James Random]

That's a very good point Freaked Out.
If scientists can't figure it out.......

IF the scientists can't figure it out - then what do you suppose this is?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/24/spaceexploration.theobserver

[Nasik]

Sen. Inhofe Calls for Inquiry Into 'Suppressed' Climate Change Report (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/29/gop-senator-calls-inquiry-supressed-climate-change-report/)

Republicans are raising questions about why the EPA apparently dismissed an analyst's report questioning the science behind global warming.




http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg103/o1ddragon/smilies/smile_twisted.gif

Turns out this is a bogus report - written by an economist, not a scientist. Please review this from Media Matters which utterly discredits this "EPA internal report".



In a June 26 CBSNews.com article (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2Fblogs%2F2009% 2F06%2F26%2Fpolitics%2Fpoliticalhotsheet%2Fentry51 17890.shtml) reporting that the Environmental Protection Agency "may have suppressed" an internal report on climate change, senior correspondent Declan McCullagh uncritically reported the document's false claim that, in the article's words, "global temperatures have declined for 11 years." McCullagh identified that claim as one of "a number of recent developments [one of the document's authors, EPA researcher Alan Carlin] said the EPA did not consider" before it submitted a key finding (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2Fstories%2F200 9%2F03%2F24%2Fpolitics%2Fwashingtonpost%2Fmain4888 350.shtml%3Ftag%3DcontentMain%3BcontentBody) that could lead to EPA regulation of carbon dioxide. In fact, the claim that "global temperatures have declined for 11 years" is simply not true. Annual global average temperatures have both risen and fallen (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fhadobs.metoffice.com%2Fhadcrut3 %2Fdiagnostics%2Fcomparison.html) over the past 11 years, and while there have been some relatively cooler years during that period -- including a decline in each of the past three relative to the year before -- climate scientists reject the idea (http://mediamatters.org/research/200903300035) that those temperatures are any indication that global warming is slowing or does not exist. Scientists have identified a long-term warming trend spanning several decades that is independent from the normal climate variability -- which includes relatively short-term changes in climate due to events like El Niño and La Niña -- to which they attribute the recent relatively cooler temperatures.
In a February 11 Guardian op-ed, Vicky Pope, the head of climate change advice at the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre, wrote (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fenvironmen t%2F2009%2Ffeb%2F11%2Fclimate-change-science-pope) that claims about the pace of global warming based only on developments in the past 10 years or in the 1990s are not valid, "since natural variations always occur on this timescale." She continued, "1998 was a record-breaking warm year as long-term man-made warming combined with a naturally occurring strong El Niño. In contrast, 2008 was slightly cooler than previous years partly because of a La Niña. Despite this, it was still the 10th warmest on record." According (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.metoffice.gov.uk%2Fcorporat e%2Fpressoffice%2F2008%2Fpr20080923c.html) to the Met Office, "Over the last ten years, global temperatures have warmed more slowly than the long-term trend. But this does not mean that global warming has slowed down or even stopped. It is entirely consistent with our understanding of natural fluctuations of the climate within a trend of continued long-term warming (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.metoffice.gov.uk%2Fclimatec hange%2Fscience%2Fmonitoring%2F)."
As this graph (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fhadobs.metoffice.com%2Fhadcrut3 %2Fdiagnostics%2Fcomparison.html) of annual global average temperatures from the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre shows, the claim in the internal EPA document that, in the words of CBS, "global temperatures have declined for 11 years" is simply not true:
http://s3.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/warming-20090629-met.jpg
According to the Met Office website (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.metoffice.gov.uk%2Fclimate% 2Fuk%2Faverages%2F), the World Meteorological Organization "requires the calculation of averages for consecutive periods of 30 years," which was chosen "as a period long enough to eliminate year-to-year variations."
Moreover, McCullagh's article did not provide scientists' assessments of the validity of the EPA document's scientific claims. Rather, he quoted Competitive Enterprise Institute (http://mediamatters.org/research/200605250007) (CEI) general counsel Sam Kazman and Reps. Joe Barton (R-TX) and James Sensenbrenner (R-WI). McCullagh noted that the CEI released the allegedly "suppressed" document and "has been skeptical of new laws or regulations relating to global warming," while Sensenbrenner was quoted as saying "the repression of this important study casts doubts on EPA's finding, and frankly, on other analysis EPA has conducted on climate issues."
By contrast, Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeler at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote in a June 26 RealClimate.org post (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realclimate.org%2Findex.php %2Farchives%2F2009%2F06%2Fbubkes%2F) that in reading the internal EPA document, "[o]ne can see a number of basic flaws [in its main points]; the complete lack of appreciation of the importance of natural variability on short time scales, the common but erroneous belief that any attribution of past climate change to solar or other forcing means that CO2 has no radiative effect, and a hopeless lack of familiarity of the basic science of detection and attribution." From Schmidt's post:

Some parts of the blogosphere, headed up by CEI (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fscienceblogs.com%2Fdeltoid%2F20 06%2F05%2Fco2_we_call_it_life.php) ("CO2: They call it pollution, we call it life! (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realclimate.org%2Findex.php %2Farchives%2F2006%2F05%2Fthank-you-for-emitting%2F)"), are all a-twitter over an apparently "suppressed" document that supposedly undermines the EPA Endangerment finding (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fepa.gov%2Fclimatechange%2Fendan germent.html) about human emissions of carbon dioxide and a basket of other greenhouse gases. Well a draft (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fcei.org%2Fcei_files%2Ffm%2Facti ve%2F0%2FDOC062509-004.pdf) of this "suppressed" document has been released and we can now all read this allegedly devastating critique of the EPA science. Let's take a look...
[...]
Their [the document authors'] main points are nicely summarised thus: a) the science is so rapidly evolving that IPCC [International Panel on Climate Change] (2007) and CCSP (2009) reports are already out of date, b) the globe is cooling!, c) the consensus on hurricane/global warming connections has moved from uncertain to ambiguous, d) Greenland is not losing mass, no sirree..., e) the recession will save us!, f) water vapour feedback is negative!, and g) Scafetta and West's statistical fit of temperature to an obsolete solar forcing curve means that all other detection and attribution work is wrong. From this "evidence", they then claim that all variations in climate are internal variability, except for the warming trend which is caused by the sun, oh and by the way the globe is cooling.
Devastating eh?
One can see a number of basic flaws here; the complete lack of appreciation of the importance of natural variability on short time scales, the common but erroneous belief that any attribution of past climate change to solar or other forcing means that CO2 has no radiative effect, and a hopeless lack of familiarity of the basic science of detection and attribution.
But it gets worse, what solid peer reviewed science do they cite for support? A heavily-criticised (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwattsupwiththat.com%2F2009%2F05 %2F23%2Fevidence-of-a-lunisolar-influence-on-decadal-and-bidecadal-oscillations-in-globally-averaged-temperature-trends%2F) blog posting showing that there are bi-decadal periods in climate data and that this proves it was the sun wot done it (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FIt%25 27s_The_Sun_Wot_Won_It). The work of an award-winning astrologer (one Theodor Landscheidt (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FTheod or_Landscheidt), who also thought that the rise of Hilter and Stalin were due to cosmic cycles (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fbourabai.narod.ru%2Flandscheidt %2Fconsider.htm)), a classic Courtillot paper we've discussed before (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realclimate.org%2Findex.php %2Farchives%2F2007%2F11%2Fles-chevaliers-de-lordre-de-la-terre-plate-part-i-allgre-and-courtillot%2F), the aforementioned FoS [Friends of Science] web page, another web page run by Doug Hoyt, a paper by Garth Paltridge reporting on artifacts in the NCEP reanalysis of water vapour that are in contradiction to every other reanalysis, direct observations and satellite data, a complete reprint of another un-peer reviewed paper by William Gray, a nonsense paper by Miskolczi (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realclimate.org%2Fwiki%2Fin dex.php%3Ftitle%3DFerenc_Miskolczi) etc. etc. I'm not quite sure how this is supposed to compete with the four rounds of international scientific and governmental review of the IPCC or the rounds of review of the CCSP reports....

http://mediamatters.org/research/200906290049

[olddragon]

The article I posted clearly said, he was an economist.

Who better to gather data?

[Nasik]

The article I posted clearly said, he was an economist.

Who better to gather data?

Haha! Well, given what the actual scientists had to say about Carlin's self-serving "study" - looks like he should stay in the back office going over books rather than pretending to be a scientist.

[MaximumPain]

Boy I think the rightys and energy lobby want to find a conspiracy so bad!!! There almost worse then the 9/11 truther squads.

[Tired Old Man]

Boy I think the rightys and energy lobby want to find a conspiracy so bad!!! There almost worse then the 9/11 truther squads.

And why not ? Look at how much money can be made here. You think Gore is doing this the help people ? He is doing this to line his own pockets.
In the eighty's it was the savings and loans. Then we had the tech bubble.
Now we have the collapse of the housing market.
Now just what could be the next bubble.
Let me think about it........

[James Random]

global temps are decreasing because the sun is entering a phase of reduced activity,

End of mystery.

[MaximumPain]

And why not ? Look at how much money can be made here. You think Gore is doing this the help people ? He is doing this to line his own pockets.
In the eighty's it was the savings and loans. Then we had the tech bubble.
Now we have the collapse of the housing market.
Now just what could be the next bubble.
Let me think about it........

Just look at the money that could be lost if there was a massive worldwide movement to stop using coal and oil as primary power sources. Wouldnt come even close to a million Al Gores and their fortunes. Its enough money to kill over thats for sure and sure enough to do a bit of lobbying and hire a few scientists to cast some doubt.... and guess who are some of the top contributors to the very right wing politicians who keep putting this stuff up as false... bet you can figure it out.

[caseaday]

How can you compare thermometer readings from the 1850's to readings taken in this digital age we live in now and still decipher a 2-5 degree change much less a 1/2 degree change. It's like comparing a computer today with an abacus then. This climate change thing is a bunch of hooey made up by people wanting to make a dollar off people's fear.If you go along with it then you are the very one they are looking for.

[Protostar]

I dont care what data reports say, ice is growing here on earth.
precipitation has been on the rise for years and the cosmic
particles are to blame.
All of this info has been continually linked on my threads of
climate change one two and three.
READ IT.

There has been a great lie cast upon the people of earth.
data sets have been changed to make it look like we are
in a warming trend and for the millionth time.
CARBON DIOXIDE IS ABOUT 5 PERCENT OF OUR ATMOSPHERE'S MAKEUP.
That means that 95 percent of our atmosphere is made up of other
gas and "materials".

READ THE ABSTRACTS. Get the info from the University Scientists,
not some government sanctioned entitiy who's sole purpose is to
get the federal grant monies.

Think what you want. go ahead and click the links to the noaa
north pole buoy's. i dont see any stinking polar bears hanging on
to that ice my friend....
are you blind? dont you see full ice/snow coverage?

so, what does the excess precipitation on earth mean to you?
is that invisible as well?

[tim299]

the greatest thing is the picture of the polar bears is of them on an iceberg, not melting sea ice. Glaciers calve, and icebergs float away and melt. Next case.

[Nasik]

I dont care what data reports say, ice is growing here on earth.

Which explains why your opinions on this matter are suspect. It seems to me, that the reason you arbitrarily dismiss the data is because the growing body of evidence fails to serve your personal viewpoint.



There has been a great lie cast upon the people of earth. data sets have been changed to make it look like we are in a warming trend and for the millionth time. CARBON DIOXIDE IS ABOUT 5 PERCENT OF OUR ATMOSPHERE'S MAKEUP. That means that 95 percent of our atmosphere is made up of other gas and "materials".


You discredit the experts in the field that have studied this phenomena and at the same time, suggest there is some great conspiracy occurring. I'm sorry, but I simply don't find this sort of argument persuasive.



READ THE ABSTRACTS. Get the info from the University Scientists,
not some government sanctioned entitiy who's sole purpose is to
get the federal grant monies.


I would be very happy to read any absract you cared to furnish. I can provide you with a surfiet of scientific data - a task facilitated by the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists agree on this issue.



Think what you want. go ahead and click the links to the noaa
north pole buoy's. i dont see any stinking polar bears hanging on
to that ice my friend....
are you blind? dont you see full ice/snow coverage?


Your powers of observation are, indeed, awe inspiring. As is your blanket dismissal of the hard data and literally, thousands, of peer reviewed expert reports on the subject. I'm far more comfortable placing my faith in the collaborative efforts of the large body of scientific experts who are not in the habit of dismissing science or data.

[TC]

How can you compare thermometer readings from the 1850's to readings taken in this digital age we live in now and still decipher a 2-5 degree change much less a 1/2 degree change. It's like comparing a computer today with an abacus then. This climate change thing is a bunch of hooey made up by people wanting to make a dollar off people's fear.If you go along with it then you are the very one they are looking for.

OOOh I like this person!! ( welcome to the forums)

The real tragedy in this climate situation is the sides being taken based upon political persuasion, rather than approaching this with an honest and unbiased study. Its frightening to think all this can hang in the balance with a conservative or liberal majority, and then throw in the grants and funding to add another motivation in an already twisted issue.

Granted a laymen may lack the education to qualify as legitimate in this debate, but it doesn't mean they can't formulate the mechanics of climate, or the possibility of understanding. Sometimes the best answer comes from something motivated by pure interest, rather than outside influence.

[Protostar]

My god freak, I thought much higher of you than that. I now have to admit that anyone who believes any of the bullshit shoveled to them and believes the "scientific data" is reliable without argument is inept. You follower.
too bad....apparently you missed the operative words READ MY THREADS. <which you seem to not understand> or are you too lazy to look em up? There you will find the abstracts.
And do not call me a layman.... i'm a lay woman!
I think 9 years of "knocking heads" with professors at Cornell
lumps me into a catagory all by itself. We are way ahead of the
"game" friend..
I dont "know it all" but hell, i've shared ALL right here for the past
5 yrs and my work speaks for itself. Always has, always will.
It is what it is. And I told you what was coming 2 yrs ago.
How on earth did I glean that information? huh?
ah well....sheeple will follow the sheep in front of em'
but dont you get tired of the sheep in front of you shittin' on you
all the time? We've posted several links to the erroneous info.
nothing else needs to be said.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/webphotos/noaa1.jpg
GOD DANG SAND IN MY SHOES. GEESH..

[Cherisa]

Record low in my area today! It's the highlight of the local news! Along with MJ and Aerosmith cancelling a concert! Doesn't Aerosmith pretty much always do that???

[lycanox]

Well, it appears that the sun is now starting to emerge from the solar minimum again.

Mystery of the missing sunspots solved. (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/17jun_jetstream.htm)
Here comes the sunspots. (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/06/17/here-comes-the-sunspot/)

[krakatoa]

This summer is the same as last year, lot of rain, some thunderstorms, not much Sun, and colder then it is suppose to be.

[Nasik]

My god freak, I thought much higher of you than that. I now have to admit that anyone who believes any of the bullshit shoveled to them and believes the "scientific data" is reliable without argument is inept. You follower.
too bad....apparently you missed the operative words READ MY THREADS. <which you seem to not understand> or are you too lazy to look em up? There you will find the abstracts.
And do not call me a layman.... i'm a lay woman!
I think 9 years of "knocking heads" with professors at Cornell
lumps me into a catagory all by itself. We are way ahead of the
"game" friend..
I dont "know it all" but hell, i've shared ALL right here for the past
5 yrs and my work speaks for itself. Always has, always will.
It is what it is. And I told you what was coming 2 yrs ago.
How on earth did I glean that information? huh?
ah well....sheeple will follow the sheep in front of em'
but dont you get tired of the sheep in front of you shittin' on you
all the time? We've posted several links to the erroneous info.
nothing else needs to be said.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/webphotos/noaa1.jpg
GOD DANG SAND IN MY SHOES. GEESH..

Again, rather than provide solid links and rational arguments you resort to insults. Here, you offered a picture of snow and somehow, that proves your point? It's simply further proof that your self-assertions of being any sort of scientific expert are suspect.

Fair enough that people have pet theories on this subject - but don't expect me, or any other rational person, to be persuaded away from the vast scientific consensus because of the rantings of an internet forum poster who claims data and facts should be ignored in favor of polaroids.

I'm more than happy to post the data and facts as often as I need to in order to mitigate against the chronic dissemination of misinformation on this topic in this forum. A task, which is very easy for me, given I've aligned my position with most scientific bodies.

In the end, if all the scientists are wrong, tell me what's the worst that can happen if we took their advice; alternatively, tell me, if your position is wrong and we do nothing as you advise, what are the consequences?

[Goldmoon]

Well, it appears that the sun is now starting to emerge from the solar minimum again.

Apparently cycle 24 in 2012 is supposed to be very violent, could this be the calm before the storm?

[Protostar]

Well, the sun has been emerging from the solar minimum for 2 years now.
What sun spot? We tracked a dying magnetic twist that didnt even get a number this time... ooo, get scared everyone, the sunspots are coming,
the sunspots are coming@@

Polariod? hahahahaha.
Is that an off shoot of a hemroid?

look up, what do you see? precipitation in abundance and weather you like it or believe it or not. it's cold up there...and there is a strange
theory that clouds make water. but, I know, I dont show you any proof of the clouds. hmmmm.

you want to know what is going to happen eh?
its gonna rain.
and rain and rain and rain and we will get more cosmic particles and
it will rain and rain....I'm not an oracle...but I do believe the theory that cosmic particles make rain...oh that's right, it rained for a million years at our earth beginning. sorry..i dont have that link, it went away about 64 million years ago.

I know, i get bitchy when I'm tired. but how the hell can you people continue to quote data sets from 19 years ago?
geesh.

[Beatnik Bob]

global temps decreasing
Are people just now figuring this out? lol, in 2007 antarctic ice was found to be the thickest it has ever been...

And because of these newfound facts, it's not called global warming, it's more properly referred to as climate change.
However, this isn't to say that carbon emissions don't consistently contribute to climate change.
If you notice, we are experiencing the hottest summers ever, and some of the coldest winters. So no, it's not cooling either. Places that get allot of rain will get more rain, and places that got little rain will get less rain.

such is such :dunno:

[Nasik]

Are people just now figuring this out? lol, in 2007 antarctic ice was found to be the thickest it has ever been...

And because of these newfound facts, it's not called global warming, it's more properly referred to as climate change.
However, this isn't to say that carbon emissions don't consistently contribute to climate change.
If you notice, we are experiencing the hottest summers ever, and some of the coldest winters. So no, it's not cooling either. Places that get allot of rain will get more rain, and places that got little rain will get less rain.

such is such :dunno:

I just wanted to add to your comment, you're right, climate change is a better term, however, that change is marked by an overall increase in global temperatures. This doesn't mean the heat will be distributed evenly, particularly initially, so people should not take localized "weather" fluctuations as being indicative of larger climate trends.


There is no doubt that the Antarctic Peninsula, which juts out from the mainland of Antarctica towards South America, has warmed significantly. A 2002 study (http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature710), however, concluded that between 1966 and 2000 the continent's interior cooled.
This study was promptly seized upon as proof that the world is not warming, even though a single example of localised cooling proves no such thing, as the lead author of the 2002 study has tried to point out (http://www.onthemedia.org/yore/transcripts/transcripts_021602_science.html).
A more recent and more comprehensive study (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/state-of-antarctica-red-or-blue/) has concluded that in fact Antarctica warmed by 0.5 °C between 1957 and 2006, with especially strong warming in West Antarctica.

The IPCC predicted that ice may thicken in central Antarctica, however, at the same time, it is shedding ice along the edges. More recent data has shown a net loss of Antarctic ice:



Finding out what is actually happening to the ice is not easy. Radar measurements of the height of the ice over parts of the continent suggest that the huge East Antarctic ice sheet grew slightly between 1992 and 2003 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1110662).
A more recent study based on satellite measurements of gravity over the entire continent suggests that while the ice sheets in the interior of Antarctica are growing thicker, even more ice is being lost from the peripheries. The study concluded that there was a net loss of ice between 2002 and 2005, adding 0.4 millimetres per year to sea levels (see Gravity reveals shrinking Antarctic ice (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg18925424.700)). Most of the ice was lost from the smaller West Antarctic ice sheet. [emphasis mine]


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11648-climate-myths-antarctica-is-getting-cooler-not-warmer-disproving-global-warming.html

[TC]

Probability of climate shift is a better analogy. I proposed earlier in several pieces, ( Heat Pump) that evaporation will cause heaver precipitation in the northern latitudes, in principal a shift of climate.

The drier regions have extended further north, this is vary evident in southern Europe where almost desert like climate is becoming the norm. This has caused increased rain throughout the northern parts of central Europe, so much that flooding is becoming a real problem from May through July.

As this continues, the consequences are milder winters from the 50th to the 70th latitudes, but also wet summers caused by a frequency of systems building in the north sea that sweep in over northern Scotland and Scandinavia.

All this is a balance or adjustment in weather mechanics to deal with solar heat changes.

[Nasik]

All this is a balance or adjustment in weather mechanics to deal with solar heat changes.

If what you say is true, then I'm puzzled. Apparently, the sun is 30% hotter than it was 4 billion years ago, but the earth has had hotter episodes in its history than today. If the solar output alone dictated climate, then the earth should have been a much colder place for most of its history.

One can only reconcile this data by incorporating other factors active in climate - significantly, the feedback effects of greenhouse gases.

I do not believe that the changes we see today are strictly an adaptation to solar variability.

[TC]

If what you say is true, then I'm puzzled. Apparently, the sun is 30% hotter than it was 4 billion years ago, but the earth has had hotter episodes in its history than today. If the solar output alone dictated climate, then the earth should have been a much colder place for most of its history.

One can only reconcile this data by incorporating other factors active in climate - significantly, the feedback effects of greenhouse gases.

I do not believe that the changes we see today are strictly an adaptation to solar variability.

Yes it is hotter now, and the result is evaporation of sea water. The variables in past geological times, such as massive volcanic activity played a large part in temperature fluctuations. ( gasses and dust)

This adjustment is a vary slow process, similar to the summer/winter temperature change, even though the sun reaches its high and low zeniths, the resulting temperatures aren't felt until several months later.

I wont say the impute of man made production is irrelevant, but the major cause of change is a natural occurrence, we just haven't been around long enough to understand the workings of its finite nature.

[Cherisa]

It's 58 F where I am today. 58!?! JULY fantastic............

[Big Pies]

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0905/S00380.htm

Junes Weather Report
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0907/S00005.htm

Temps Well Below Average
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10582082
Niwa
http://tvnz.co.nz/content/2824930

Coldest Winter In Years
http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/2475616/Jack-Frost-hangs-around-for-the-weekend

Auckland Freezes
http://www.weatherwatch.co.nz/content/auckland-freezes-big-frosts-nz-wide


This is Taken from A local weather station up the road.Which show the daily average tempature has come down & the maximums temps for the monts of june have nearly haved in 5 years

http://www.fairfieldweather.info/

Averages\Extremes for the month of June 2009

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average temperature = 5.7°C
Avg daily max temp :9.7°C
Avg daily min temp :1.9°C
Frost days= 5


Averages\Extremes for the month of June 2008

-----------------------------------------------
Average temperature 6.3°C
Rainfall for month 47.0 mm
Avg daily max temp :11.5°C
Avg daily min temp :1.6°C
Frost days= 8


Averages\Extremes for the month of June 2007
--------------------------------------------------------
Average temperature 4.3 °C
Maximum heat index 3.7 °C
Maximum temperature 3.7
Minimum temperature 3.6


Averages\Extremes for the month of June to 30 2006
------------------------------------------------------------
Average temperature 5.1 °C
Maximum temperature 18.0 °C
Minimum temperature -5.2 °C


Averages\Extremes for the month of June to 30 2005

------------------------------------------------------
Average temperature 5.9 °C
Maximum temperature 19.0 °C on day 21 at time 12:29
Minimum temperature -3.6

[Big Pies]

Oh yeah one more
June Very Cold
http://www.odt.co.nz/the-regions/central-otago/63327/sunshine-banishes-winter-blues

[lycanox]

Yet Europe has experienced the warmest spring in years.

[Nasik]

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0905/S00380.htm

Junes Weather Report
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0907/S00005.htm

Temps Well Below Average
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10582082
Niwa
http://tvnz.co.nz/content/2824930

Coldest Winter In Years
http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/2475616/Jack-Frost-hangs-around-for-the-weekend

Auckland Freezes
http://www.weatherwatch.co.nz/content/auckland-freezes-big-frosts-nz-wide


This is Taken from A local weather station up the road.Which show the daily average tempature has come down & the maximums temps for the monts of june have nearly haved in 5 years

http://www.fairfieldweather.info/



The majority of your links, which simply repeat the same information, report that NZ experienced a colder than normal June in 2008. According to the information provided in these links, this was due in large part, to a high pressure system keeping an Antarctic cold snap in play over the region.

Sceptics are often under the false belief that climate change must mean that every temperature, everywhere, must always be hotter; anything short of that flawed construct disproves climate change. That's simply not scientific or correct. It is confusing weather with climate. Localized variations in weather do not refute the overall climate trend.

Your own Ministry of Environment (http://www.climatechange.govt.nz/science/index.html)cites the following impacts of climate change on NZ:

Increased temperatures (about 0.9 deg C over past 100 years)
Reduced frost frequency over most of the country
Retreat of many South Island glaciers & snowlines
Reduced alpine snow mass
Sea-level rise (estimated 16 cm over last century).
As for the first link, it is an article by Dr. Newman (her PhD is in mathematics) and her views extremely conservative, eliciting controversy even within her own party: "Newman has courted controversy for her conservative moral views, even among members within her own party, who believe that such conservatism is anathema to what they see as the party's classical liberal doctrines".

She established the NZ Center for Political Research, and a review of their website shows one of its chief aims (judging by the content) is to refute climate change. Is she qualified to make the cavaliar statements she does in her article, and more importantly, is her opinion heavily influenced by her own ideologies. She writes in the article:



According to the theory of global warming being touted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Al Gore and many others (who have spent an estimated $50 billion trying to show man-made greenhouse gas emissions are causing catastrophic global warming) the earth’s temperatures should be rising in line with a continuing increase in carbon dioxide emissions (see Jerry Carlson, Will Media Expose Global Warming Con Job? (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/media_con_job_global_warming.html)). The problem is that the planet stopped warming more than a decade ago. In fact, as the graph below shows, global warming has now been replaced by global cooling and while carbon dioxide levels continue to rise, temperatures continue to fall. This graph demonstrates that the global warming theory based on the computer models of the IPCC and others, is wrong.


She is a political advocate pretrending to be an expert. She employs some data and omits other data, in order to make her position seem tenable. It's not when you look at all the data.



Tracking the heat

Why the difference? The main reason (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/global-trends-and-enso/) is that there are no permanent weather stations in the Arctic Ocean (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826591.800-climate-scientists-go-with-the-floe.html), the place on Earth that has been warming fastest (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12724-arctic-ice-shrinks-to-record-low.html). The Hadley record simply excludes this area, whereas the NASA version assumes its surface temperature is the same as that of the nearest land-based stations.
It is possible that the NASA approach underestimates the rate of warming in the Arctic Ocean, but for the sake of argument let's assume that the Hadley record is the most accurate reflection of changes in global surface temperatures. Doesn't it show that the world has cooled (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/) since the record warmth of 1998, as many claim (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9644)?
Not necessarily. The Hadley record is based only on surface temperatures, so it reflects only what's happening to the very thin layer where air meets the land and sea.
In the long term, what matters is how much heat is gained or lost by the entire planet - what climate scientists call the "top of the atmosphere" radiation budget - and falling surface temperatures do not prove that the entire planet is losing heat

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.html

It is not accurate to state the earth has been cooling since 1998 (last 10 years). As you can see from the above quote, there have been very warm months (carefully omitted in Newman's analysis I note). The existance of weather variations does not disproof climate change. The deeper pattern is one of warming, that is clear to most scientists (in the field). Her suggestion that the IPCC did not predict this cooling is somewhat disingenious as a host of variabilities were built into their models. Here is what actual climate scientists have to say:



Over the last couple of months there has been much blog-viating about what the models used in the IPCC 4th Assessment Report (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html) (AR4) do and do not predict about natural variability in the presence of a long-term greenhouse gas related trend. Unfortunately, much of the discussion has been based on graphics, energy-balance models and descriptions of what the forced component is, rather than the full ensemble from the coupled models. That has lead to some rather excitable but ill-informed buzz about very short time scale tendencies. We have already discussed (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/) how short term analysis of the data can be misleading, and we have previously commented on the use of the uncertainty in the ensemble mean being confused with the envelope of possible trajectories (here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/)). The actual model outputs (http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/about_ipcc.php) have been available (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/02/ipcc-archive/) for a long time, and it is somewhat surprising that no-one has looked specifically at it given the attention the subject has garnered. So in this post we will examine directly what the individual model simulations actually show.

First, what does the spread of simulations look like? The following figure plots the global mean temperature anomaly for 55 individual realizations of the 20th Century and their continuation for the 21st Century following the SRES A1B scenario. For our purposes this scenario is close enough to the actual forcings over recent years for it to be a valid approximation to the simulations up to the present and probable future. The equal weighted ensemble mean is plotted on top. This isn’t quite what IPCC plots (since they average over single model ensembles before averaging across models) but in this case the difference is minor.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm

[tim299]

Humans just can't accept the fact that the Earth changes. I am so sick of the law of averages. Playing cards is the perfect example. In the short term the variation is high, it is the long term that make the winners winners and the losers losers. I am saying we are here too short of time to see the long term effects of what happens on the Earth. Therefore, there is nothing we can do to change anything that is happening or what will happen. And finally, we as a species are a blip on the radar screen that will one day go extinct an be gone. The Earth will move on and we will just be part of geologic history.

[Goldmoon]

Emissions have an effect on the planet. Its simple. You will see soon enough.

Humans are "Destroying the Earth"

[Tired Old Man]

Emissions have an effect on the planet. Its simple. You will see soon enough.

Humans are "Destroying the Earth"

Humans might destroy each other but the planet will go on without us.

[Nasik]

Humans might destroy each other but the planet will go on without us.

I think you're right, however, do we really want to be the generation that had the power to do something and didn't, and it lead to the demise of our own young species? (taking a good portion of the current species with it).

People think that humans can have no effect - we're so small - they say; what about viruses on the human body - consider their size, where millions can fit on the head of a pin and yet no one disputes that they can have effects on the human body.

[Tired Old Man]

I think you're right, however, do we really want to be the generation that had the power to do something and didn't, and it lead to the demise of our own young species? (taking a good portion of the current species with it).

People think that humans can have no effect - we're so small - they say; what about viruses on the human body - consider their size, where millions can fit on the head of a pin and yet no one disputes that they can have effects on the human body.

You said you think I'm right. If humans can't destroy the planet how can we save it ? Now if you want to change the topic to how can we save mankind I'm with you. I'll agree we need to stop pollution. We need clean water and air.

If we can't control the weather all we can do is prepare for it.
Somehow I don't think I'll like your answer to this.

[Nasik]

You said you think I'm right. If humans can't destroy the planet how can we save it ? Now if you want to change the topic to how can we save mankind I'm with you. I'll agree we need to stop pollution. We need clean water and air.

If we can't control the weather all we can do is prepare for it.
Somehow I don't think I'll like your answer to this.

I'm not suggesting that we would destroy the planet; I'm talking about making the near-future climate unviable for - us - people. We can't control "climate" but to say that our actions have no negative impact on climate is contrary to what the evidence tells us. So, the best we can do is mitigate our impacts.

[Tired Old Man]

I'm not suggesting that we would destroy the planet; I'm talking about making the near-future climate unviable for - us - people. We can't control "climate" but to say that our actions have no negative impact on climate is contrary to what the evidence tells us. So, the best we can do is mitigate our impacts.

Interesting. I'll agree we need to do what we can to make the near-future livable for us. You talk about evidence as to our impact on climate. You say we can't control "climate" but we should mitigate our impact on it.
Clean water and clean air works for me. And we should do all we can towards that goal.
Wait for it......wait for it....
The science is not settled yet as to what man can or can not do to change the climate. I'll agree the climate is changing. So what do we so ?
Prepare for it. Now just how do we do that when we really don't know what is going to happen. The same way man has always done it. To cold ? Move ...
To wet or dry to grow food ? Move ....
Granted my solution is simply in theory and would be a bitch to make work but what else can we do ?
If we can't control the weather the weather will control us.

[alpha]

despite the massive growth in population.

despite the massive increase in production of greenhouse gases

temperatures have decreased.

Science agrees something is up with the Sun. Science agrees we are in a cooling phase (present tense, none of them can say how long this will last).

Science also agrees the magnetopause is weaker and more cosmic rays are entering Earth's atmosphere. No one can say what effect that has on climate but it doesn't take an IPCC Climatologist to work out it might effect it somehow. Funny how the Russians are warning aircraft to be careful in certain areas. You can be sure their military aircraft aren't going any where near those areas!

We pollute, that's it. And yes we pollute the atmosphere. But, still, no one can tell us what EXACT effect manmade greenhouse gases has on temperatures. It's impossible that's why! Too many factors effect the climate! it is pure folly to ASS*U*ME man is solely responsible for global warming / climate change!

i vote for clean air and water for all too.

it can be done easily too. It's big business that stops it! get rid of these ideals and we might get somewhere (Worldwide share of the wealth!)

we need to find another Planet and quick.

it's a good job people like Branson and Elon Musk are designing rockets. We can't trust the Gov'ts to help us!

[Goldmoon]

alpha: Science agrees something is up with the Sun. Science agrees we are in a cooling phase (present tense, none of them can say how long this will last).

What about all the scientists who say we will have a Solar Maximum, and a huge storm in 2012? Is this just the calm before the storm?

[tim299]

Who gives a shit about 2012. We will be lucky to make it that far at the rate the world is going.

[lycanox]

Sofar for cooling temperatures.

June was warmer than usual in malta. (http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090701/local/june-was-warmer-drier-than-usual)
Warmer than usual Iceland nearly breaks cold record (http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/06/27/warmer-than-usual-iceland-nearly-breaks-cold-record/)
UK Met Office sees rest of summer getting warmer (http://in.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idINLU899820090630)
North Sea warmer than normal. (http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fweernieuws.weeronline.nl% 2Fnoordzee_warmer_dan_normaal%2F7%2F4419&sl=nl&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)
Warm spring sets more records. (http://www.eurogates.nl/en_dutch_study_programmes_news_universities/id/7110/)

[TC]

Just one report showing the increased rain fall that will continue. This is the result of ocean water evaporation to adjust excess temperatures, this has been on the rise for several years now, England, France, and central Europe have seen twice the average rain over the last 10 years.


Euronews;.Flood-hit Europe braces itself for more rain25/06/09 18:42 CET

Emergency services in central and eastern Europe are battling against the effects of some of the worst flooding in nearly a decade.

In the Czech Republic at least eight people have been reported dead – six of them through drowning but two elderly people are thought to have died from heart failure after medical teams could not reach them in time.

A police spokesperson said all emergency calls were being investigated but several more people were missing.

Austria has recorded its heaviest rain in 50 years.
Where the flooding is at its worst, mainly in the north and west of the country, over 1,000 military personnel have been brought in to help.

Environment Minister, Stephen Pernkopf said:
“The lower part of the Danube is still rising slightly ans we can not yet give an all clear because storms are expected over the next few hours, but the clean-up has already started.”

But across Slovakia, southern Poland and Hungary, the misery continues, with high flood alerts posted on several rivers as more rain is forecast at the weekend.

[olddragon]

weather.gov

PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE NEW YORK NY
455 PM EDT WED JUL 1 2009

...UNUSUALLY WET AND COOL JUNE FOR CENTRAL PARK...

FOR SOME PERSPECTIVE...HERE ARE THE TOP TEN COOLEST AND WETTEST
JUNES ON RECORD SINCE 1869 FOR CENTRAL PARK NY:

COOLEST WETTEST
AVG. TEMP. YEAR INCHES PRECIP. YEAR
64.2 1903 10.27 2003
65.2 1881 10.06 2009
65.7 1916 9.78 1903
66.8 1926/1902 9.30 1972
67.2 1958 8.79 1989
67.3 1927 8.55 2006
67.4 1928 7.76 1887
67.5 2009/1897 7.58 1975
67.7 1878 7.13 1938
67.8 1924 7.05 1871


DUE TO THE UNUSUALLY COOL AND WET CONDITIONS IN JUNE...HERE ARE SOME
INTERESTING FACTS TO NOTE:

THIS JUNE IS TIED FOR THE 8TH COOLEST ON RECORD. THE AVERAGE
TEMPERATURE WAS 67.5...3.7 DEGREES BELOW NORMAL...WHICH ALSO
OCCURRED IN 1897.

THIS WAS THE COOLEST JUNE SINCE 1958...WHEN THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE
WAS 67.2 DEGREES.

BELOW AVERAGE TEMPERATURES OCCURRED ON 23 OUT OF 30 DAYS THIS
JUNE...OR 75 PERCENT OF THE MONTH.

CENTRAL PARK HAS NOT HIT 90 DEGREES IN THE MONTH OF JUNE THIS YEAR.
THE LAST TIME THIS OCCURRED WAS BACK IN 1996.

CENTRAL PARK HAS NOT HIT 85 DEGREES IN THE MONTH OF JUNE THIS YEAR.
THE LAST TIME THIS OCCURRED WAS BACK IN 1916. THIS HAS ONLY OCCURRED
2 OTHER TIMES...1903 AND 1886.

THE LAST TIME THAT CENTRAL PARK HIT 90 OR GREATER THIS YEAR WAS IN
APRIL. THE LAST TIME THAT CENTRAL PARK HIT 90 IN APRIL...BUT NOT IN
JUNE WAS BACK IN 1990.

THE LAST TIME THAT CENTRAL PARK HIT 85 OR GREATER THIS YEAR WAS IN
MAY. THE LAST TIME THAT CENTRAL PARK HIT 85 IN MAY...BUT NOT IN JUNE
WAS BACK IN 1903. THE LAST TIME THAT CENTRAL PARK HIT 85 IN
APRIL...BUT NOT IN JUNE WAS ALSO BACK IN 1903.

THE LOWEST TEMPERATURE REACHED IN CENTRAL PARK IN THE MONTH OF JUNE
WAS 50 DEGREES. THE LAST TIME THIS OCCURRED WAS BACK IN 2003.

THE LOW TEMPERATURE DIPPED BELOW 60 DEGREES 11 TIMES IN THE MONTH OF
JUNE. THE LAST TIME THIS OCCURRED WAS IN 2003 WHEN IT OCCURRED 17
TIMES.

IT WAS THE SECOND WETTEST JUNE ON RECORD WITH 10.06 INCHES OF RAIN.
THE WETTEST JUNE ON RECORD IS 2003 WITH 10.27 INCHES.

THERE WERE 19 DAYS THIS JUNE WHERE THERE WAS AT LEAST 0.01 INCHES OF
RAINFALL. THIS HAS NEVER OCCURRED IN CENTRAL PARK.

AT LEAST A TRACE OF RAINFALL WAS REPORTED ON 23 OUT OF 30 DAYS THIS
JUNE.

[krakatoa]

This summer is the same as last year, lot of rain, some thunderstorms, not much Sun, and colder then it is suppose to be.

yesterday night and overnight, we had to closed the windows, and we put heat till early this morning, usually at this time of the year, all of our windows are open and that is overnight too. The summer so far is not good, today we have Sun not that warm, for the first time, but sadly tomorrow the rain is suppose to come back it was like that last year too.:ohmy:

[Goldmoon]

It seems the weather patterns are just disrupted in general all over.

Because here, we have broken an all time historical record for heat. In fact, it would be nice for some people if it were cooler.

The way I see it, things are going to heat up all over in general, and quite quickly for that matter. You won't believe how hot 2011 will be, many will perish due to the intense heat. The sun will scorch men with heat.

[Nasik]

weather.gov

PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE NEW YORK NY
455 PM EDT WED JUL 1 2009

...UNUSUALLY WET AND COOL JUNE FOR CENTRAL PARK...

FOR SOME PERSPECTIVE...HERE ARE THE TOP TEN COOLEST AND WETTEST
JUNES ON RECORD SINCE 1869 FOR CENTRAL PARK NY:

COOLEST WETTEST
AVG. TEMP. YEAR INCHES PRECIP. YEAR
64.2 1903 10.27 2003
65.2 1881 10.06 2009
65.7 1916 9.78 1903
66.8 1926/1902 9.30 1972
67.2 1958 8.79 1989
67.3 1927 8.55 2006
67.4 1928 7.76 1887
67.5 2009/1897 7.58 1975
67.7 1878 7.13 1938
67.8 1924 7.05 1871


DUE TO THE UNUSUALLY COOL AND WET CONDITIONS IN JUNE...HERE ARE SOME
INTERESTING FACTS TO NOTE:

THIS JUNE IS TIED FOR THE 8TH COOLEST ON RECORD. THE AVERAGE
TEMPERATURE WAS 67.5...3.7 DEGREES BELOW NORMAL...WHICH ALSO
OCCURRED IN 1897.

THIS WAS THE COOLEST JUNE SINCE 1958...WHEN THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE
WAS 67.2 DEGREES.

BELOW AVERAGE TEMPERATURES OCCURRED ON 23 OUT OF 30 DAYS THIS
JUNE...OR 75 PERCENT OF THE MONTH.

CENTRAL PARK HAS NOT HIT 90 DEGREES IN THE MONTH OF JUNE THIS YEAR.
THE LAST TIME THIS OCCURRED WAS BACK IN 1996.

CENTRAL PARK HAS NOT HIT 85 DEGREES IN THE MONTH OF JUNE THIS YEAR.
THE LAST TIME THIS OCCURRED WAS BACK IN 1916. THIS HAS ONLY OCCURRED
2 OTHER TIMES...1903 AND 1886.

THE LAST TIME THAT CENTRAL PARK HIT 90 OR GREATER THIS YEAR WAS IN
APRIL. THE LAST TIME THAT CENTRAL PARK HIT 90 IN APRIL...BUT NOT IN
JUNE WAS BACK IN 1990.

THE LAST TIME THAT CENTRAL PARK HIT 85 OR GREATER THIS YEAR WAS IN
MAY. THE LAST TIME THAT CENTRAL PARK HIT 85 IN MAY...BUT NOT IN JUNE
WAS BACK IN 1903. THE LAST TIME THAT CENTRAL PARK HIT 85 IN
APRIL...BUT NOT IN JUNE WAS ALSO BACK IN 1903.

THE LOWEST TEMPERATURE REACHED IN CENTRAL PARK IN THE MONTH OF JUNE
WAS 50 DEGREES. THE LAST TIME THIS OCCURRED WAS BACK IN 2003.

THE LOW TEMPERATURE DIPPED BELOW 60 DEGREES 11 TIMES IN THE MONTH OF
JUNE. THE LAST TIME THIS OCCURRED WAS IN 2003 WHEN IT OCCURRED 17
TIMES.

IT WAS THE SECOND WETTEST JUNE ON RECORD WITH 10.06 INCHES OF RAIN.
THE WETTEST JUNE ON RECORD IS 2003 WITH 10.27 INCHES.

THERE WERE 19 DAYS THIS JUNE WHERE THERE WAS AT LEAST 0.01 INCHES OF
RAINFALL. THIS HAS NEVER OCCURRED IN CENTRAL PARK.

AT LEAST A TRACE OF RAINFALL WAS REPORTED ON 23 OUT OF 30 DAYS THIS
JUNE.

Since all of your statistics seem to be with the Eastern Coast - (New York) - maybe the glacial melt of Greenland (thanks to GW) has finally started to disrupt the Ocean Conveyor Belt.

[BotchedToad]

From my past readings I was under the impression Northern Europe would be the 1st to feel the Big Chill should the conveyor belt start to shut down...

[TC]

Since all of your statistics seem to be with the Eastern Coast - (New York) - maybe the glacial melt of Greenland (thanks to GW) has finally started to disrupt the Ocean Conveyor Belt.

Nope... it travels northwards along the east coast of North America, so any fresh water disturbance from the glacial fields would cause a reaction several thousand miles eastward along the northern European coastline. ( Predominantly Scotland and the UK)

Kadoos to Botched Toad. (you know the current directions)

[alpha]

Sofar for cooling temperatures.

June was warmer than usual in malta. (http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090701/local/june-was-warmer-drier-than-usual)
Warmer than usual Iceland nearly breaks cold record (http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/06/27/warmer-than-usual-iceland-nearly-breaks-cold-record/)
UK Met Office sees rest of summer getting warmer (http://in.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idINLU899820090630)
North Sea warmer than normal. (http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fweernieuws.weeronline.nl% 2Fnoordzee_warmer_dan_normaal%2F7%2F4419&sl=nl&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)
Warm spring sets more records. (http://www.eurogates.nl/en_dutch_study_programmes_news_universities/id/7110/)

i could give you far more examples of below average temperature reports all over the Globe since 2007. Iceland has been getting severe jet stream blasts for at least a year now, tis why they all talk about high winds and warm temps. Holland may have had a warm spring, woo-hoo! lucky you! The North Sea is getting warmer, in Holland. What else could be causing sea temperatures to increase?! look under not over!

this is an interesting report: No Warming Trend for over 12 Years (http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/no-warming-trend-for-over-12-years-may-2009-update-on-current-temps-rss/)

[Nasik]

Nope... it travels northwards along the east coast of North America, so any fresh water disturbance from the glacial fields would cause a reaction several thousand miles eastward along the northern European coastline. ( Predominantly Scotland and the UK)

Kadoos to Botched Toad. (you know the current directions)

While this is true, it is also true that the interruption of the OCB would also cause cooler weather along the Eastern Coast of North America - just not as dramatic as Europe:



Global warming could plunge North America and Western Europe into a deep freeze, possibly within only a few decades.
That's the paradoxical scenario gaining credibility among many climate scientists. The thawing of sea ice covering the Arctic could disturb or even halt large currents in the Atlantic Ocean. Without the vast heat that these ocean currents deliver--comparable to the power generation of a million nuclear power plants--Europe's average temperature would likely drop 5 to 10°C (9 to 18°F), and parts of eastern North America would be chilled somewhat less. Such a dip in temperature would be similar to global average temperatures toward the end of the last ice age roughly 20,000 years ago.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/05mar_arctic.htm

[lycanox]

i could give you far more examples of below average temperature reports all over the Globe since 2007. Iceland has been getting severe jet stream blasts for at least a year now, tis why they all talk about high winds and warm temps. Holland may have had a warm spring, woo-hoo! lucky you! The North Sea is getting warmer, in Holland. What else could be causing sea temperatures to increase?! look under not over!
And how do you know that it aren't your reports that aren't representative.

And like stated before. Europe would be the first to encounter the effects of an new cooler periods. Yet things are quite hot and sunny over there.


this is an interesting report: No Warming Trend for over 12 Years (http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/no-warming-trend-for-over-12-years-may-2009-update-on-current-temps-rss/)
That still does absolutely not rule out an warming trend on a larger time scale.

[Nasik]

Paraphrasing James Lovelock, father of the Gaia Theory: instead of looking at annual fluctuations focus on the one thing that's going to tell you whether or not the planet is heating up: Sea Level Rise.

Sea level rise only occurs because of two things: melting glaciars and warming waters (which expand). It is the true "thermometer" and tells us if the earth is heating up overall or not.




Current sea level rise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_ingression)has occurred at a mean rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past century,[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_ingression#cite_note-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_ingression#cite_note-church2006-1) and more recently at rates estimated near 2.8 ± 0.4[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_ingression#cite_note-2) to 3.1 ± 0.7[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_ingression#cite_note-Bindoff-3) mm per year (1993-2003).



Can't argue with science.

Interesting article - says we're already fucked basically.

http://www.alternet.org/environment/141081/the_dark_side_of_climate_change%3A_it%27s_already_ too_late%2C_cap_and_trade_is_a_scam%2C_and_only_th e_few_will_survive/

[alpha]

Paraphrasing James Lovelock, father of the Gaia Theory: instead of looking at annual fluctuations focus on the one thing that's going to tell you whether or not the planet is heating up: Sea Level Rise.

Sea level rise only occurs because of two things: melting glaciars and warming waters (which expand). It is the true "thermometer" and tells us if the earth is heating up overall or not.



Can't argue with science.

Interesting article - says we're already fucked basically.

http://www.alternet.org/environment/141081/the_dark_side_of_climate_change%3A_it%27s_already_ too_late%2C_cap_and_trade_is_a_scam%2C_and_only_th e_few_will_survive/

what a croc of absolute shiite!

it's nearly as bad as the G8 saying they're going to limit global warming to 2 degrees C !

when i heard that yesterday, I spat my coffee out, choked on it laughing my head off then realised the consequences and ulterior motives behind it!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8141352.stm

GLOBAL TEMPERATURES ARE DECREASING: F*A*C*T

if 2009 shows a decrease what you going to say then!?

"still the glaciers are melting and the seas are rising"

you don't mention the opposite in certain areas. Where it has been colder than normal with glaciers increasing. EXPLAIN THAT!?

For the G8 to say we're going to limit global warming to 2C is the biggest joke i have heard in years, they expect us to believe that shit!!

no scientist on Earth can say what increase in temps has been attributed to man made greenhouse gases. How can they say by reducing CO2 by 2050 is going to limit the increase in temperature!!

what a croc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A Sunspot appeared on the 4th July, ONE fekkin Sunspot, now they say the Sun has awoken with a hive of activity; B*U*L*L*S*H*I*T !!!!!!!!!!!

the forces linking the solar, yes S*O*L*A*R system are weaker than ever before, our magnetosphere is weaker than EVER before. What effect will that have: it lets in more cosmic energy from elsewhere dunt it! hard to prove but you could assume weaker solar energy would appear more intense due to the weaker magnetosphere!

how many factors do you want that effect the climate!!!???

yet you think manmade CO2 is going to melt the glaciers!

fuckin hell, what a load of bollocks !!

[Nasik]

what a croc of absolute shiite!

it's nearly as bad as the G8 saying they're going to limit global warming to 2 degrees C !

when i heard that yesterday, I spat my coffee out, choked on it laughing my head off then realised the consequences and ulterior motives behind it!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8141352.stm

GLOBAL TEMPERATURES ARE DECREASING: F*A*C*T

if 2009 shows a decrease what you going to say then!?

"still the glaciers are melting and the seas are rising"

you don't mention the opposite in certain areas. Where it has been colder than normal with glaciers increasing. EXPLAIN THAT!?

For the G8 to say we're going to limit global warming to 2C is the biggest joke i have heard in years, they expect us to believe that shit!!

no scientist on Earth can say what increase in temps has been attributed to man made greenhouse gases. How can they say by reducing CO2 by 2050 is going to limit the increase in temperature!!

what a croc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A Sunspot appeared on the 4th July, ONE fekkin Sunspot, now they say the Sun has awoken with a hive of activity; B*U*L*L*S*H*I*T !!!!!!!!!!!

the forces linking the solar, yes S*O*L*A*R system are weaker than ever before, our magnetosphere is weaker than EVER before. What effect will that have: it lets in more cosmic energy from elsewhere dunt it! hard to prove but you could assume weaker solar energy would appear more intense due to the weaker magnetosphere!

how many factors do you want that effect the climate!!!???

yet you think manmade CO2 is going to melt the glaciers!

fuckin hell, what a load of bollocks !!

You started the thread claiming the world was cooling down - there's been a net increase in temperature and a net increase in sea levels - (which we've shown via links to reputable / neutral sites) - you're the self-proclaimed science whiz - you figure it out.

[caseaday]

To do a serious study of the statistics on global warming you will have to study the numbers over an extended period of time. Sorry but the human race hasn't been on earth hardly long enough. Let's go back a few million years or even 100000 thousand years and compare the thermometer readings then too now. Oh sorry the scientists then forgot to write down the temps on the cave walls . Cmon people really we have nothing to compare the climate too. Comparing the temps now to even 100 years ago is like comparing temps from 1 hour to the next when you talk about how long the earth been hangin around . This is just a natural cycle . You can't prove me wrong because you have no data to back you up. I can prove them wrong with their own science. The oceans used to cover a lot more land than now which proves they were deeper then. The water had to go somewhere. It froze in the last ice age which we are still recovering from.

[Protostar]

People believe the damdest things and you cant change their minds.
so dont bother. The planet is cooling.
and as far as the gulf stream....
it takes 1200 years for ONE ENTIRE LAP OF THE GULF STREAM.
The hadley circulation
The walker circulation
which I have discussed with links on the earth changes thread
is just 2 of the gulfstream's factors which are ignored but which
play pivitol roles.
I'm not gonna say you are wrong or i am wrong.
I dont know why people want to argue about climate change
fools.
I guess those clouds in the sky aren't real.
Earth has made condensation abundantly.
The last time earth made this much condensation we went into an
ice age oh, you dont want the facts to "muster up" the global warming lie.
Earth is cooling. dont bother with glacier stats and ice sheet stats...
ice "moves around" the planet. it decreases and increases.....
Global Warming people will "fall by the wayside" soon enough
but it is NOT THEIR FAULT.
They were LED BY LIES. And faulty data from so called "reputable" scientists... aaah, the sweet smell of capitolism coming to its end....
Then the real threat is on....
FOOD PRODUCTION.

You can argue about who gets to eat today.

[TC]

To do a serious study of the statistics on global warming you will have to study the numbers over an extended period of time. Sorry but the human race hasn't been on earth hardly long enough. Let's go back a few million years or even 100000 thousand years and compare the thermometer readings then too now. Oh sorry the scientists then forgot to write down the temps on the cave walls . Cmon people really we have nothing to compare the climate too. Comparing the temps now to even 100 years ago is like comparing temps from 1 hour to the next when you talk about how long the earth been hanging around . This is just a natural cycle . You can't prove me wrong because you have no data to back you up. I can prove them wrong with their own science. The oceans used to cover a lot more land than now which proves they were deeper then. The water had to go somewhere. It froze in the last ice age which we are still recovering from.

Nice level headed post.

My sentiments lay in this attitude as well, that we haven't been here long enough to understand the workings of climate. To just blatantly state that the world is hotter because of mankind is folly of the highest order, more so when being used as a political springboard.

There is no set standard to go by, what we have is collective data that allows for scientific theory..... and this is limited. Our geological records are all we have to represent the past actions of interglacial periods, and this is by far better than current speculation based on one hundred years of temperature information that is questionable due to technology.

[alpha]

you can't take away the FACTS on the first page of this thread. Global temps have decreased markedly in the last 2 years.

extreme weather is on the increase. With shed loads more precipitation!

something is up with the climate. what's causing it to cool and go hay-wire?

man of course! ROFL! LMFAO! :humpin::humpin::humpin:

I DON'T FLIPPIN THINK SO!!

1. Space weather
2. Sun activity
3. Solar system effects
4. Magnetosphere
5. Volcanic
6. Seismic
7. Gulf stream
8. Jet Stream
9. el ninho
10. el nina
11. natural and manmade greenhouse effect
12. pollution

we pollute, we should stop it for health and air quality reasons (and free energy for all reasons)!!!

we add to the greenhouse effect! But NOT ONE SCIENTIST ON EARTH CAN SAY BY HOW MUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[alpha]

here's a way out idea:

why can't we recycle the CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere? use a solar powered plane to hoover it all up!?

surely you can make carbon out of CO2

carbon makes carbon fibre doesn't it?

[lycanox]

you can't take away the FACTS on the first page of this thread. Global temps have decreased markedly in the last 2 years.
Actually you only showed that the temperatures have decreased in only a few areas selected areas.
You cant deny the fact that in the past decades. Global average temperatures have gone up.


extreme weather is on the increase. With shed loads more precipitation!
Which can only be the result of an increase of temperature. As cooling leads to less precipitation, not more.

[alpha]

Actually you only showed that the temperatures have decreased in only a few areas selected areas.
You cant deny the fact that in the past decades. Global average temperatures have gone up.

errr, no! the original graph was GLOBAL average temperatures actually



Which can only be the result of an increase of temperature. As cooling leads to less precipitation, not more.

agreed, but the heat aint just coming from the Sun, there are far more forces at work from Space and beneath your feet to accelerate the evaporation, condensation, convection etc....

all of which is mentioned in great detail on ECNIII

then you have to take the dimming into consideration if there is so much precip. turn off the "other" heating factors and blammo, instant ice age...

[bluenose_ian]

It's quite easy to say if its warming or cooling right now if your a fisherman.

It cant predict what the trend will be like in the future or everywhere in the world, but cold places like the North sea should see species of warm water fish migrating further north if the climate is getting warmer.


From what I have seen and looked at, also my own fishing experiences shows it is getting warmer as warm water creeps up the coast, species like Bass that is normally found down south.

Other species are being found so its no one off event.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/apr/02/wildlife.environment

Blue Marlin found on Welsh beach

http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/blue-marlin623.html#cr
ok this one was last year but still, also a swordfish was found just weeks before this.

Swarms of jelleyfish found in Scotland

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/8140880.stm


It still does not explain how? , why its getting warmer?

Just that evidence suggest's it is getting warmer for now.

[Nasik]

Nice level headed post.

My sentiments lay in this attitude as well, that we haven't been here long enough to understand the workings of climate. To just blatantly state that the world is hotter because of mankind is folly of the highest order, more so when being used as a political springboard.

There is no set standard to go by, what we have is collective data that allows for scientific theory..... and this is limited. Our geological records are all we have to represent the past actions of interglacial periods, and this is by far better than current speculation based on one hundred years of temperature information that is questionable due to technology.

Sorry, but if the scientists apparently can't figure the climate out, then self-proclaimed climate gurus on the internet, certainly can't either.

You can't dismiss the body of scientific opinion by claiming we don't have enough information, only later to supplant that opinion with your own theories. We either have enough information for scientists (and you) to make an opinion - or we don't have enough information.

These sort of admissions are reasonable.

[TC]

Sorry, but if the scientists apparently can't figure the climate out, then self-proclaimed climate gurus on the internet, certainly can't either.

You can't dismiss the body of scientific opinion by claiming we don't have enough information, only later to supplant that opinion with your own theories. We either have enough information for scientists (and you) to make an opinion - or we don't have enough information.

These sort of admissions are reasonable.

Agreed, I wouldn't place myself above responsible science, I would suggest a theory based on study. ( I don't recall stating any absolutes)

I do on the other hand argue the man made factor as being the cause of climate change.

[iulian28ti]

I recommend...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=proof-on-ice-southern-greenland-green-earth-warmer

In 1981 researchers removed a long tube of ice from the center of a glacier in southern Greenland at a site known as Dye 3. More than a mile (two kilometers) long, the deep end of the core sample had been crushed by the pressure of the ice above it and sullied by contact with rock and soil. By destroying the pattern of annual layers, this contamination seemingly made it impossible to assess the region's ancient climate. But DNA extracted from the previously ignored dirty bottom has revealed that Greenland was not only green, it boasted boreal forests like those found in Canada and Scandinavia today.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/a_new_record_for_antartic_total_ice_extent

While the Antarctic Peninsula area has warmed in recent years and ice near it diminished during the Southern Hemisphere summer, the interior of Antarctica has been colder and ice elsewhere has been more extensive and longer lasting, which explains the increase in total extent. This dichotomy was shown in this World Climate Report blog posted recently with a similar tale told in this paper by Ohio State Researcher David Bromwich, who agreed “It’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now”.

[Nasik]

Yes, but also from your Scientific article:



Adds team member and glaciologist Martin Sharp of the University of Alberta in Edmonton: "One could argue that this shows that natural forcing could account for the current warm conditions, but the current orbital configuration does not support this, even when other natural forcings are taken into account. One could also argue that if natural warming can deglaciate much of southern Greenland, then natural warming plus anthropogenic warming could cause even more extensive deglaciation."
Looking at an ice core from a site on the glaciated continent of Antarctica known as Dome C, scientists have stretched the climate record back 800,000 years, tracking eight successive glacial periods, according to another online report in Science. The data shows that natural variations in Earth's orbit—obliquity, or how tilted the planet is in relation to the sun—have determined global temperatures in the past, they report. "This helps us put current warming into context," Sharp notes, "but it really has nothing to say about the mechanisms driving the current warming."


No one disputes the earth has had warm episodes in its past; however, the rate of change surpasses "natural forcings" - and its speed is also something to consider, the climate will be changing faster than most organisms are able to cope. In the end, the planet will probably go on as it has before, with or without us - but I'd prefer "with us" - don't you?

[alpha]

if anyone disputes that we add to the greenhouse effect, they're idiots

if anyone disputes that we do NOT understand everything about EARTH'S climate, they're also idiots

you said it in your last post FO, or that article did:

"This helps us put current warming into context," Sharp notes, "but it really has nothing to say about the mechanisms driving the current warming."

they just don't know what is causing warming in CERTAIN areas. There is extreme COLD in other areas, why is that?

Once and for all the UN MUST collate specialists in all areas associated with the Climate:

weather, oceans, volcanos, earthquakes, polar, solar system, galaxy, universe

then we might understand it a BIT better

........

then we need to prepare to get off this rock! and quick!!!

:bye:

[Nasik]

if anyone disputes that we add to the greenhouse effect, they're idiots...if anyone disputes that we do NOT understand everything about EARTH'S climate, they're also idiots .... you said it in your last post FO, or that article did:


"This helps us put current warming into context," Sharp notes, "but it really has nothing to say about the mechanisms driving the current warming."
Yes, but I believe that quote was referring to warming caused by our orbital position relative to the sun. In other words, it is saying that the warming we experience today cannot be dismissed as just a corollary of our earth's current positioning / cycle with the sun.



they just don't know what is causing warming in CERTAIN areas. There is extreme COLD in other areas, why is that?


The bottom line is that there is a net rise in sea level. That means a net increase in the earth's temperature, unless you propose to violate some basic laws of physics. :ohmy:

Even the ever dwindling group of climate change skeptics have now ceded the earth is warming up and have refocused their efforts on studying the causes.



Once and for all the UN MUST collate specialists in all areas associated with the Climate:

weather, oceans, volcanos, earthquakes, polar, solar system, galaxy, universe


But they did. The IPCC included experts from a wide range of scientific fields: solar physicists; geologists; climatologists; oceanographers; atmospheric; I mean the list is exhaustive. Further, the reports have been subject to intensive peer review and have the endorsement of most major scientific institutions. What more do you need?:2thumbs:

[olddragon]

Record Low Temperatures Hit Northeast (http://www.nowhampshire.com/2009/07/14/record-low-temperatures-hit-northeast/)

As politicians in Washington, DC debate what to do about global warming, the Northeast has been hit with record low temperatures this morning.

According to ABC News, the cities of Binghamton and Rochester in New York and Hartford, CT experienced record lows for July today.

Meanwhile, here in the Granite State, temperatures in Concord fell to 47-degress this morning, the lowest since 1940. Temperatures in Portsmouth tied the lowest every recorded in July.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3I70tzI3VU&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nowhampshire.com%2F2009%2F07 %2F14%2Frecord-low-temperatures-hit-northeast%2F&feature=player_embedded

[Nasik]

Oh Goodie, another blogsite article (this one pretending to be a news site - funny) by another uneducated skeptic who thinks that one day, week or season of uncommonly cool weather along the East Coast of the US somehow dispells everything all these scientists are telling us. Oh yeah, this "Patrick" fella, he's got it alllll figured out.

I wonder, if next year, should you have uncommonly hot temperatures throughout eastern US if you will, with the same vigilence, be posting those record temperatures. I somehow doubt it - tsk tsk.

[Goldmoon]

I'll get the graphs again, just at work now.

But the graphs do show that the worldwide average has gone up a lot.(This is when you include all areas)

[Big Pies]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/queenstown/2605108/Winter-one-for-the-record-books

[alpha]

thanks Big Pies, enjoy the winter down there if you can. We love snow in Yorkshire in the UK and the last 2 winters have given us more of the stuff than previous years. ANOTHER example of cooler than average temps somewhere on the Planet.

Whoever says Global Warming is continuing is an IDIOT!!!

despite SOME glaciers melting, despite SOME areas experiencing warmer than average temperatures you cannot hide from the FACTS!!!

global average temperatures have DECREASED in the last 2 years!

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/

every graph in the World shows a decline! Why? when everyone still keeps HARPING on about warming!

why is science so LOCAL? Warming might be happening in the SUMMER in Greenland. Scientists can only measure what's beneath their feet at the time!

DESPITE your supposed UN specialists we STILL have NO CLUE W*H*A*T*S*O*E*V*E*R about what drives the WHOLE Planet's climate!

undersea warming is a MAJOR contributor to rise in sea levels. 0.8 millimetres a year is NOTHING!

this Guy is on the money!

at least some people are thinking leftfield: http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact2&fsize=0

[olddragon]

alpha, you know that man made global warming has become a religion to some.
That is the reason for the big push now.

They see temperatures going down and are desperate to pass Cap & Trade. http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg103/o1ddragon/smilies/cash.jpg

Then when the Temperature drops are apparent to everyone, they can say, see we did it! http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg103/o1ddragon/smilies/fireworks.gif

We controlled the MMGW. http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg103/o1ddragon/smilies/DROOLSMILEY2.gif



http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg103/o1ddragon/smilies/sFun_explosive.gif

[Protostar]

If one only understood that earths core has been cooling for millions of years, then one would understand the physics of this planet.
Unfortunately, when you rely on scientists who:
Attach bags to the ass end of cows for measurement of the radiated gas from said suject, then you know that those same people get influenced by the out dated information that they have been gleaning for years...

look at it this way, their uneducated "wild guess" will spell the end of em. And that'll be one less mouth to feed.

[lycanox]

alpha, you know that man made global warming has become a religion to some.
That is the reason for the big push now.

They see temperatures going down and are desperate to pass Cap & Trade. http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg103/o1ddragon/smilies/cash.jpg

Then when the Temperature drops are apparent to everyone, they can say, see we did it! http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg103/o1ddragon/smilies/fireworks.gif

We controlled the MMGW. http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg103/o1ddragon/smilies/DROOLSMILEY2.gif



http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg103/o1ddragon/smilies/sFun_explosive.gif

Except for the facts that there is no evidence that temperatures are actually dropping.
And that the is also a natural warming trend going on. Aside the much debated man made warming of the planet.

[MaximumPain]

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=36699

So some people look at the graph pictured here and see a slight down trend in global temps so that means the whole climate change theory is completely wrong? Did you look at the graph... I mean really look at it? Is there any other down trends on there? Go ahead take a look Ill wait....

Wow there were other times when the temp went down really and then it went back up.


Calendar year 2008 was the coolest year since 2000

Climate change is not something that occurs over a 5 year period this graph alone goes back to 1880. Where your off is being able to comprehend the scale as it is much longer then a typical human life. Im sure the earth could easily reset the climate and it could probably do it in only a few thousand years..... how long has human civilization existed? Yeah a few thousand years.... how about the industrial age? A few hundred. Earths climate is what we are set up to deal with right now and it would be costly to screw it up and it would take too long to wait for it to reset itself. Besides that the pollution and energy generation technology's that needs to be regulated have other bad quality's as well their supposed effect on our climate they should be controlled and eventually replaced for the good of all mankind.

[MaximumPain]

alpha, you know that man made global warming has become a religion to some.
That is the reason for the big push now.

They see temperatures going down and are desperate to pass Cap & Trade. http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg103/o1ddragon/smilies/cash.jpg

Then when the Temperature drops are apparent to everyone, they can say, see we did it! http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg103/o1ddragon/smilies/fireworks.gif

We controlled the MMGW. http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg103/o1ddragon/smilies/DROOLSMILEY2.gif



http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg103/o1ddragon/smilies/sFun_explosive.gif

I think you want the conspiracy theory threads OD. Unless you have some evidence that its all a hoax you would like post? Theres at least as much of a chance if not more of one that the oil (ie the Saudis and the most powerful corporations on the planet) and coal companies would put up some money for some counter science. All they need to get done really is to delay action from the citizens and governments to create doubt. Every day we fail to regulate them they make more money not bad in it self unless they are doing it at our expense. Or can we count on them to clean up the mess if there is one? If you have no evidence then your just blowing hot air out your ass. At least the scientists can point to some data.

[olddragon]

I think you want the conspiracy theory threads OD. Unless you have some evidence that its all a hoax you would like post? Theres at least as much of a chance if not more of one that the oil (ie the Saudis and the most powerful corporations on the planet) and coal companies would put up some money for some counter science. All they need to get done really is to delay action from the citizens and governments to create doubt. Every day we fail to regulate them they make more money not bad in it self unless they are doing it at our expense. Or can we count on them to clean up the mess if there is one? If you have no evidence then your just blowing hot air out your ass. At least the scientists can point to some data.

No, I do not want the conspiracy thread.
I simply disagree with your view, on global warming being man made,
or that it could ever be controlled or reduced by man. :0.02:

:ohmy:

[MaximumPain]

No, I do not want the conspiracy thread.
I simply disagree with your view, on global warming being man made,
or that it could ever be controlled or reduced by man. :0.02:

:ohmy:

Actually Im not sure if its man made yet but I do believe the scientists that CO2 could have an effect. Im also not sure we could do anything about it even if we wanted to it would be very hard to get all the humans to go along even if it could be proved that we need to do something. I do see value in changing the way we create and use energy and I do believe we as humans are having a negative effect on the health of our bio sphere through pollution and deforestation.

What gets me when I see conflicting facts in articles that claim man release less then 1 percent of the CO2/year that enters our atmosphere. A classic one is the claim that volcanoes release more CO2 per year then humans do.
Now if you use some of the mega events like toba you can get that but during our stint of civilization there has not been such an event.

""Carbon Dioxide

Yearly averages of global temperatures have steadily increased since the industrial revolution, mid-1700's to mid-1800's in England, addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from industrial processes and the internal combustion engine. Carbon dioxide is abundant in volcanic gases, but not enough to significantly contribute to the greenhouse effect. Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons of carbon dioxide per year while man's activities contribute about 10 billion tons per year. ""
http://volcanology.geol.ucsb.edu/gas.htm
In addition volcanoes put out soot which blocks some of the suns energy and in effect cools the atmosphere.
So the idea is just not true at this time humans do put out many times more CO2 then volcanoes... so why lie?

In this article ( http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html ) they claim that humans release only 6 billion tons of CO2 a year. But according to this source ( http://www.phrasebase.com/english/countries/trans_co2emissions.php?variable=trans_co2emissions ) the top 5 alone release 10 billion tons a year so which is it?

No global warming is not my religion but I just don't see a conspiracy to lie coming from a good sized chunk of the scientific community. They are seeing a correlation in data and rightly bringing it to the worlds attention.

[tim299]

Global temps have been rising since the end of the little ice age. It looks aas 1998 was the year everything maxed out and temps are on a decline. And this season is a hell of a lot cooler than ever.

[MaximumPain]

Global temps have been rising since the end of the little ice age. It looks aas 1998 was the year everything maxed out and temps are on a decline. And this season is a hell of a lot cooler than ever.

Did you look at the graph?

Here it is again http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=36699

The annual mean went up from 1998 and the 5 year average looks like its just started going down in the last 2 years. Will the trend continue or will it go back up again?

If you study the trends of that graph you will see many ups and downs both in the 5 year and annual mean. You will also see the gradual up trend from what looks like about 1910 until today. Im not really sure why this caused Alpha to prematurely ejaculate but I guess hes just excited to think hes right. In all honesty it will take years before we can see if this cooling is going to continue or if the warm up will come back.

[Nasik]

Religion is the belief in something for which you have no proof.

I'd say the GW skeptics are more religious than those of us that pay heed to the facts and what the vast majority of scientists are telling us.

Don't reduce this to bullshit ad hominen attacks - either you have something to offer as proof of your position or you don't. On the balance of solid information so far presented, I've seen zero from the skeptics beyond partisan opinions and much conjecture. Now they are reduced to simply insulting the other parties. When they resort to that, you know they've got nothing.

[alpha]

Global cooling is here to stay!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VakA4-qAuWE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iPg5Z_hVlE&feature=related


http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/march2008/210308graph.jpg

that would be temp from 1998 and the blue line, well that would be INCREASING CO2 !

more FACTS:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/march2008/210308graph2.jpg

[alpha]

Religion is the belief in something for which you have no proof.

I'd say the GW skeptics are more religious than those of us that pay heed to the facts and what the vast majority of scientists are telling us.

Don't reduce this to bullshit ad hominen attacks - either you have something to offer as proof of your position or you don't. On the balance of solid information so far presented, I've seen zero from the skeptics beyond partisan opinions and much conjecture. Now they are reduced to simply insulting the other parties. When they resort to that, you know they've got nothing.

what you FAIL to understand is that temperatures are decreasing and IMO as well as MANY others is that they will continue to do so. It doesn't matter whether the FACTS show 2 years decline, 5 years decline or 11 years decline THEY ARE DECLINING! F*A*C*T !!!!!

IDIOTS deny THAT FACT!

admission of guilt, maybe!! LOL!

if CO2 is increasing why would temperatures be decreasing then ? "COME AND HAVE A GO IF YOU THINK YOU'RE HARD ENOUGH!!??"

Piers Corbyn is right on the money, his long range predictions (try 11 months in the future for size!) are 85-90% correct but mainstream science ridicules their findings and research. Fekkin typical blinkered attitude of the majority.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iPg5Z_hVlE&feature=related

and here's July's forecast:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYJezhOpuK8&feature=related

and the hundred year:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VakA4-qAuWE&feature=related

[alpha]

look......

what YOU (and you know who YOU are) don't understand is that none of us who say there is no manmade warming are not in the pay of BP, Shell, Mobil, Exxon or whatever we always say we pollute and we shouldn't, and we SHOULD be using renewable clean energy and we DEFINITELY should STOP cutting down the rain forest.

if you believe the mainstream media and science you SHOULDN'T!

the science DOES NOT WORK!!!

CO2 increase = decrease in temperatures. that's the reality!!

WAKE UP!!!!!!!!

[olddragon]

Religion is the belief in something for which you have no proof.


Like the theory of Man Made Global Warming ! :Bow:

Not a proven fact, a theory.......:thumbs:


And Big Al says, Can I get an Amen?
http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg103/o1ddragon/smilies/angry-smiley-225.gif

[MaximumPain]

if you believe the mainstream media and science you SHOULDN'T!

the science DOES NOT WORK!!!

CO2 increase = decrease in temperatures. that's the reality!!



You just proved your complete ignorance on the known science congratulations. Its not a question of if CO2 is a green house gas its if humans are putting out enough of it and other green house gasses to have an effect on the long term climate.

You sir have now proven your self to be the idiot you so like to call others.

Edit ~ And stop challenging people to a fight over the internet please...

"COME AND HAVE A GO IF YOU THINK YOU'RE HARD ENOUGH!!??"
No one wants to see your e-peen just keep it in your pants, thank you.

[Glacial Ridge]

Sorry Alpha, I understand where you are coming from. I watch the solar cycle too. But its hard for the people who are dealing with the droughts, heat and fires to grasp this concept.

CO2 lags behind temperature increases. First the rise in temps and then up comes the CO2 and methane. They are right to say we are adding to CO2. But that doesn't change the historical record which says CO2 LAGS behind temerature increases. Just ask a dinasaur lol.

Crawling back into the cosmic beyond. Geesh

[tim299]

In all honesty I don't even know what global warming is.

[MaximumPain]

84% of scientists agree that the earth is warming and mans activity's are having an effect on that.

http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1550

Thats one hell of a conspiracy. Did Al Gore pay them all or are they just doing it to get paid at a future date?

[lycanox]

And to add to that.

We are not discussing man made global warming here.
Just whether or not global temperatures are going up or down.

[Glacial Ridge]

arrrrrrrgh

[Nasik]

look......

what YOU (and you know who YOU are) don't understand is that none of us who say there is no manmade warming are not in the pay of BP, Shell, Mobil, Exxon or whatever we always say we pollute and we shouldn't, and we SHOULD be using renewable clean energy and we DEFINITELY should STOP cutting down the rain forest.

if you believe the mainstream media and science you SHOULDN'T!

the science DOES NOT WORK!!!

CO2 increase = decrease in temperatures. that's the reality!!

WAKE UP!!!!!!!!

Well, okay. I should ignore the main science organizations and well, basically 84% of the scientists - oh yes, and as I was advised earlier by another skeptic, I'm supposed to ignore the data.... because the data doesn't matter.

So, the science doesn't matter and the actual data doesn't matter. So, I'm guessing, I'm just supposed to sort of follow your advice or, if not, I'm under threat of what exactly... physical reprisal?

Obviously you're passionate about this topic, but you're in an ever dwindling group. I mean, even global warming skeptics have largely conceded, in the face of the data, that the earth is indeed, heating up. Of course the causes of that warming are still debated, but aside from the fringe, I don't see anyone stating, with any real conviction, that the earth isn't presently on a warming trend.

[tim299]

good, i hope we all burn to a crisp you stupid motherfuckers. WAKE UP!!!!! stop being so dumb.

[MaximumPain]

good, i hope we all burn to a crisp you stupid motherfuckers. WAKE UP!!!!! stop being so dumb.

Do have an idea to share or are you just going to rant? Let me know so I can put you on ignore if I have to?

[iulian28ti]

Once and for all the UN MUST collate specialists in all areas associated with the Climate:

weather, oceans, volcanos, earthquakes, polar, solar system, galaxy, universe

Yeah, let the TRUE scientists do the thinking, not the politicians.


The bottom line is that there is a net rise in sea level. That means a net increase in the earth's temperature, unless you propose to violate some basic laws of physics.
Here's some laws of physics and some facts.

An iceberg is a large piece of freshwater ice that has broken off from a snow-formed glacier or ice shelf and is floating in open water.[1] It may subsequently become frozen into pack ice or come to rest on the seabed in shallower water, causing ice scour, also known as ice gouging. Because the density of pure ice is about 920 kg/m³, and that of sea water about 1025 kg/m³, typically only one-tenth of the volume of an iceberg is above water.

Same thing applies to the bigger glaciers, the polar ice shelves.

Recently, Antarctica has reached a new freeze record (http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/a_new_record_for_antartic_total_ice_extent). That means more ice. More ice beneath the surface of the water means more displacement.

In fluid mechanics, displacement occurs when an object is immersed in a fluid, pushing it out of the way and taking its place. The volume of the fluid displaced can then be measured, as in the illustration, and from this the volume of the immersed object can be deduced (the volume of the immersed object will be exactly equal to the volume of the displaced fluid).

That explains why sea level is rising. If there is anything we should be concerned about, that is lower temperatures of ice shelves, or bigger temperatures of ice sheets. Those are the glaciers which do not contribute to displacement because they're on the land. However, since Greenland (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=proof-on-ice-southern-greenland-green-earth-warmer) and even Antarctica (http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf045/sf045p13.htm) have been green in the past, then there's no reason to assume that human activity has caused the recent shrinkage of Greenland.

Especially when dealing with this kind (http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/modplot.html) of evidence regarding solar activity.

[alpha]

sorry Glacial!

WHY DO PEOPLE STILL SAY TEMPS HAVE GONE UP!?

despite the title of the thread, the graph on post 1, despite the graphs on this page, there are still people on here who DENY that temps have gone down in the last 2 years!

I did NOT point the IDIOT-FINGER at anyone, YOU should know me by now and if others don't the finger pointing is MOSTLY aimed at Al Gore, the G7/8/9 and the UN! Their BULLSHIT from all quarters drives me up the fekkin wall!! :ack:

to resort to penis and PE jibes is a bit sad though. Takes one to know one hey MAXIMUM!! You must have a COMPLEX going on there mate, you can't stop talking about little ones!! lol!

"come and have a go if you think you're hard enough" is a provocative song us Brits sing to people who just can't face the truth. IT'S CALLED A WIND UP! and it looks like it worked!

but apologies there, i admit to going too far sometimes, it stops here.

THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS:

temps have gone down and CO2 has gone up.

we can argue the toss as to when the decline started, I say from 1998 but there is such a sharp decline from 2007 it's alarming! To say that temps are PROBABLY going to go back up is clutching at straws to say the least.

we are never going to agree. JUST admit temps have gone down in the last 2 years!

[Nasik]

Yeah, let the TRUE scientists do the thinking, not the politicians.


Here's some laws of physics and some facts.

An iceberg is a large piece of freshwater ice that has broken off from a snow-formed glacier or ice shelf and is floating in open water.[1] It may subsequently become frozen into pack ice or come to rest on the seabed in shallower water, causing ice scour, also known as ice gouging. Because the density of pure ice is about 920 kg/m³, and that of sea water about 1025 kg/m³, typically only one-tenth of the volume of an iceberg is above water.

Same thing applies to the bigger glaciers, the polar ice shelves.

Recently, Antarctica has reached a new freeze record (http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/a_new_record_for_antartic_total_ice_extent). That means more ice. More ice beneath the surface of the water means more displacement.

In fluid mechanics, displacement occurs when an object is immersed in a fluid, pushing it out of the way and taking its place. The volume of the fluid displaced can then be measured, as in the illustration, and from this the volume of the immersed object can be deduced (the volume of the immersed object will be exactly equal to the volume of the displaced fluid).

That explains why sea level is rising. If there is anything we should be concerned about, that is lower temperatures of ice shelves, or bigger temperatures of ice sheets. Those are the glaciers which do not contribute to displacement because they're on the land. However, since Greenland (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=proof-on-ice-southern-greenland-green-earth-warmer) and even Antarctica (http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf045/sf045p13.htm) have been green in the past, then there's no reason to assume that human activity has caused the recent shrinkage of Greenland.

Especially when dealing with this kind (http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/modplot.html) of evidence regarding solar activity.

You're reasoning is flawed and it does not coincide with the data. While there has been thickening within the interior of the Antarctic - there is significant wasting along the perimeters. The Antarctic has, in fact, experienced a net loss of ice:


The team found that the net loss of ice mass from Antarctica increased from 112 (plus or minus 91) gigatonnes a year in 1996 to 196 (plus or minus 92) gigatonnes a year in 2006. A gigatonne is one billion metric tons, or more than 2.2 trillion pounds. These new results are about 20 percent higher over a comparable time frame than those of a NASA study of Antarctic mass balance last March that used data from the NASA/German Aerospace Center Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment. This is within the margin of error for both techniques, each of which has its strengths and limitations.

The increase of ice, within the interior, is diminutive in comparison to the overall loss of ice the antarctic is experiencing. Some researchers believe the ozone hole is accounts for the slight augmentation found within the interior:



Reporting in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, scientists from British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and NASA say that while there has been a dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice, Antarctic sea ice has increased by a small amount as a result of the ozone hole delaying the impact of greenhouse gas increases on the climate of the continent.


Full article here http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080123181952.htm
and here http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090421101629.htm


This also is in line with the rising in sea levels, an expected corollary of ice loss and warming waters.

[MaximumPain]

Alpha you should see if your high school (or what ever passes for a secondary education over there) offers a course on statistics. You should learn what a mean is and how to read graphs. You are correct that 2008 was a bit cooler then 2006. what I don't understand is why you are jumping up and down like you won the lottery over a process that takes 10s of years to show real change? If you take a look at the graph you posted it does show several other periods where it got cooler for a year or two then continued to raise again. The little drop you are freaking out over could just be another one of those dips before it starts back up again.

As I've stated I'm not 100% on man being the cause of global warming, I also acknowledge that we could be entering a cooling period but I don't think that's likely. There is no question that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that humans are causing an increase of it in our atmosphere. Its also true that humans are damaging the tools that the earth would use to capture some of the CO2 from the atmosphere by destroying much of the earths forests. Can we afford to do nothing?

Oh and if its just that you have to be right here.... ITS GETTING COOLER.... there are you happy now?

[Nasik]

Whoever says Global Warming is continuing is an IDIOT!!!

despite SOME glaciers melting, despite SOME areas experiencing warmer than average temperatures you cannot hide from the FACTS!!!

global average temperatures have DECREASED in the last 2 years!

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/

every graph in the World shows a decline! Why? when everyone still keeps HARPING on about warming!

Hey dude, I bothered to read this graph... looks like you didn't.

It says right there on the front page: "it looked as though smoothed global average temperatures had dropped markedly in recent years, which is misleading (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/2.html)."

If you bothered to read what that office had to say, or clicked on the "misleading" tab - you would have found that they say this:



Temperatures are continuing to rise

The rise in global surface temperature has averaged more than 0.15 °C per decade since the mid-1970s. Warming has been unprecedented in at least the last 50 years, and the 17 warmest years have all occurred in the last 20 years. This does not mean that next year will necessarily be warmer than last year, but the long-term trend is for rising temperatures.
A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade. The warming trend can be seen in the graph of observed global temperatures. The red bars show the global annual surface temperature, which exhibit year-to-year variability. The blue line clearly shows the upward trend, far greater than the uncertainties, which are shown as thin black bars. The recent slight slowing of the warming is due to a shift towards more-frequent La Niña conditions in the Pacific since 1998. These bring cool water up from the depths of the Pacific Ocean, cooling global temperatures.


So, just to run it through once more for the kiddies, you call us all idiots for not paying attention to the graph you offered - which you apparently didn't read, because even the authors of that graph dismiss the small variation in temperature and conclude, yes, the earth is heating up. Who was it again, you were calling an idiot?

[olddragon]

Coolest July 21 recorded in Nashville as cool wave continues in Tenn. (http://www.whnt.com/news/sns-ap-tn--recordcool,0,4032125.story)


Cool weather has broken a previous low temperature for July 21 in Nashville that was set when Rutherford B. Hayes was president.

When the temperature at the National Weather Service station dipped to 58 degrees at 5:30 a.m. on Tuesday, it wiped out the previous record low for the date of 60 degrees, which was set in 1877.

NWS forecaster Bobby Boyd noted it was the third consecutive morning when Nashville either tied or broke a daily low temperature record.

Temperatures were cool, but did not break records at several Tennessee cities.

Knoxville dropped to 59 degrees Tuesday morning, Chattanooga had 60 degrees, Tri-Cities recorded 58 degrees and Memphis was 69 degrees.


Al's hometown.....:nana:

[Nasik]

Coolest July 21 recorded in Nashville as cool wave continues in Tenn. (http://www.whnt.com/news/sns-ap-tn--recordcool,0,4032125.story)



Al's hometown.....:nana:

Some regions of the US may indeed be experiencing cooler than normal temperatures, but don't let that fool you. Much of the world is experiencing hotter temperatures, including within your own country.

Let's look at Texas. It's suffering from a devastating drought. Austin is experiencing it's hottest June on record and 2009 has been one of the driest years ever recorded. The drought has led to an " estimated $3.6 billion in crop and livestock losses..." According to Texas agriculture officials, if the drought continues "without ample rains the year’s final tally could top a record set in 2006." [1]


How about the Upper Midwest or the Plains?[2]


Upper Midwest: Dry weather prevailed, which led to the expansion of drought coverage in this region. Most notably, portions of northwestern Wisconsin and southeastern Minnesota have received less than 70 percent of normal precipitation over the last 365 days, which has caused streamflows to drop below the 5th percentile over large portions of the area. Abnormal Dryness (D0) was also introduced into northern Michigan, reflecting declining streamflows and pronounced short-term precipitation shortages.

Plains: Drought expanded under a dry, hot weather regime across the south. In Texas and Oklahoma, record-setting heat (100°F or greater) coupled with gusty winds and little, if any, rainfall resulted in expansion of drought over most areas. In Texas, drought intensity and coverage expanded over most of the state, with Extreme (D3) to Exceptional (D4) drought extending from Del Rio eastward into Centerville, and southward through College Station to Galveston. Drought also expanded in western and northern portions of the state in response to scorching heat and strong winds. The same held true in Oklahoma, where a record-shattering high of 114°F in Buffalo was a telltale marker of rapidly increasing dryness and crop stress. However, more than an inch of rain in eastern portions of the state was enough to keep drought from worsening in these areas, although substantial longer-term deficits still persist. Farther north, an additional one to three inches of rainfall eased Abnormal Dryness (D0) in the Dakotas, although the moisture was mostly a no-show in eastern North Dakota. [emphasis mine]



In the Canadian prairies we have had some of the hottest temperatures recorded, and it too, is suffering from drought. "Already nine counties in Alberta have declared states of emergency due to extreme dryness. The province banned all private Canada Day fireworks celebrations. Restrictions on fires and watering have been instituted all over the region."[3]

Moving way from North America, we see that Australia has recorded some record breaking dry conditions. "...a substantial area of southeastern Australia, including southern and eastern Victoria, saw a continuation of dry conditions. Victoria has now experienced its fourth driest January to June on record."[4]

But I think, this article, is probably the best. The Ocean's surface temperature rose to its highest levels since 1880 (breaking the 2005 record) and combined land/ocean surface temperature was the second warmest on record (just behind 2005) [5].



Warmest June on Record for Global Ocean Surface Temperature
●●●
ASHEVILLE, North Carolina, July 21, 2009 (ENS) - The world's ocean surface temperature in June rose to its warmest since 1880, breaking the previous high mark set in 2005, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville.

The combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for June was second-warmest since global recordkeeping began.
The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for June 2009 was the second warmest on record, behind 2005, 1.12 degrees Fahrenheit (0.62 degree C) above the 20th century average of 59.9 degrees F (15.5 degrees C).

Separately, the global ocean surface temperature for June 2009 was the warmest on record, 1.06 degrees Fahrenheit (0.59 degree C) above the 20th century average of 61.5 degrees F (16.4 degrees C).

The global land surface temperature for June 2009 was 1.26 degrees Fahrenheit (0.70 degree C) above the 20th century average of 55.9 degrees F (13.3 degrees C), and ranked as the sixth-warmest June on record.

The Pacific Ocean warming pattern known as El Niño is back after six straight months of increased sea-surface temperature anomalies. June sea surface temperatures in the region were more than 0.9 degree Fahrenheit (0.5 degree C) above average.

On land, increased warmth was most notable in Africa, according to the National Climatic Data Center. Considerable warmth also occurred in Siberia and in the lands around the Black and Mediterranean Seas.

Cooler than average land locations in June were the U.S. Northern Plains, the Canadian Prairie Provinces, and central Asia.
Arctic sea ice covered an average of 4.4 million square miles during June, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. This is 5.6 percent below the 1979-2000 average extent.

By contrast, the 2007 record for the least Arctic sea ice extent was 5.5 percent below average. Antarctic sea ice extent in June was 3.9 percent above the 1979-2000 average.

In June, heavy rain fell over central Europe, triggering mudslides and floods. Thirteen fatalities were reported

________________
[1] http://www.reporternews.com/news/2009/jul/21/no-headline---aglosses/
[2] http://drought.unl.edu/DM/MONITOR.html
[3] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/prairies-show-signs-of-extended-drought-researchers-warn/article1203663/
[4] http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/drought/drought.shtml\
[5] http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2009/2009-07-21-096.asp

[alpha]

Hey dude, I bothered to read this graph... looks like you didn't.

It says right there on the front page: "it looked as though smoothed global average temperatures had dropped markedly in recent years, which is misleading (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/2.html)."

If you bothered to read what that office had to say, or clicked on the "misleading" tab - you would have found that they say this:


So, just to run it through once more for the kiddies, you call us all idiots for not paying attention to the graph you offered - which you apparently didn't read, because even the authors of that graph dismiss the small variation in temperature and conclude, yes, the earth is heating up. Who was it again, you were calling an idiot?

i don't care whether they say the FACTS are misleading or not the temps are going down and IMO they will continue to fall.

all THEY do is monitor temperature, there is no joined up thinking in mainstream science, they never work together. They haven't even correlated the effects the solar system has on our climate!

there are many reasons why there is an apparent sea level rise (thanks Julian, that makes complete sense!), sea temperature rise, freak weather all over the World, hot and cold.

but it AIN'T man that causes it.

as i said before whoever thinks they are an idiot that's up to them, i point fingers at politicians not individuals! if you want to join the politicians fine but i didn't call anyone DIRECTLY an idiot!

unless YOU admit temps have gone down in the last 2 years, well.....

2+2= ???

[Goldmoon]

You wish they were going down ;)

Look at the graphs for the past few years.

Looks like you guys will have to agree to disagree here.

[alpha]

:ack:
:ohmy::ohmy::ohmy::ohmy::ohmy::ohmy:
:noevl:
:confused:
:doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh:

[lycanox]

what you FAIL to understand is that temperatures are decreasing and IMO as well as MANY others is that they will continue to do so. It doesn't matter whether the FACTS show 2 years decline, 5 years decline or 11 years decline THEY ARE DECLINING! F*A*C*T !!!!!

IDIOTS deny THAT FACT!


admission of guilt, maybe!! LOL!
The charts clearly show an rise in the past 100 years.
Whish is backed by an diminishing of ice in glaciers and polar ice. An increase of droughts and record high temperatures.



if CO2 is increasing why would temperatures be decreasing then ? "COME AND HAVE A GO IF YOU THINK YOU'RE HARD ENOUGH!!??"
Question is more. Why are the temperatures increasing. Not if the temperatures are increasing.


Piers Corbyn is right on the money, his long range predictions (try 11 months in the future for size!) are 85-90% correct but mainstream science ridicules their findings and research. Fekkin typical blinkered attitude of the majority.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iPg5Z_hVlE&feature=related

and here's July's forecast:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYJezhOpuK8&feature=related

and the hundred year:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VakA4-qAuWE&feature=relatedPierce Corbyn is nothing more than a shenanigan.
He predicts cold temperatures in the winter and warm temperatures in the summer. And miraculously corrects his predictions when he turns out wrong.

The idiot even predicted that an hurricane would level most of western Europe a couple of years back. Nothing happened.

A dutch weatherman even nearly lost his license for quiting his weird predictions.


i don't care whether they say the FACTS are misleading or not the temps are going down and IMO they will continue to fall.
The facts clearly point otherwise.


all THEY do is monitor temperature, there is no joined up thinking in mainstream science, they never work together. They haven't even correlated the effects the solar system has on our climate!Actually they already take the effects of the sun into account.

And I severely doubt that you have the education, connections and tools to properly investigate your claims like they have.


there are many reasons why there is an apparent sea level rise (thanks Julian, that makes complete sense!), sea temperature rise, freak weather all over the World, hot and cold.

but it AIN'T man that causes it.
Even if you completely take away the debated human warming effect. You still have the natural warming of the planet.


as i said before whoever thinks they are an idiot that's up to them, i point fingers at politicians not individuals! if you want to join the politicians fine but i didn't call anyone DIRECTLY an idiot!

unless YOU admit temps have gone down in the last 2 years, well.....

2+2= ???
You clearly stated that either you believe that the earth is cooling. Or you are an idiot.

[Nasik]

i don't care whether they say the FACTS are misleading or not the temps are going down and IMO they will continue to fall.

all THEY do is monitor temperature, there is no joined up thinking in mainstream science, they never work together. They haven't even correlated the effects the solar system has on our climate!

That was your link - not mine. For the record, I'm going to trust the scientists' interpretation of the data and not your creative, uneducated, interpretation of the data - further, I don't think ignoring data is a good idea on topics concerning science, although you seem to support that practice.




but it AIN'T man that causes it.


Well, I suppose that remains an issue of debate for some. Most scientists don't agree with you and believe there is a man-made component to global warming.



unless YOU admit temps have gone down in the last 2 years, well.....


The clear intention of this thread is to refute global warming by citing two years of slowed warming - tertiary to the larger picture from my perspective, and from your perspective, as you have openly suggested we're entering a cooling phase. Now that the data and the facts, even those you provide, aren't supporting your position, you are, somewhat disingeniously, attempting to marginalize the debate to semantics. I don't think so - it doesn't work that way.

[dcookcan]

In the Canadian prairies we have had some of the hottest temperatures recorded, and it too, is suffering from drought. "Already nine counties in Alberta have declared states of emergency due to extreme dryness. The province banned all private Canada Day fireworks celebrations. Restrictions on fires and watering have been instituted all over the region."[3]

Sorry to burst your bubble FO, but the Canadian prairies have experienced eight months in a row or below average temperatures, including the coldest July on record so far. Let me repeat that - The coldest July EVER! Yes we have been experiencing a drought, which is par for the course in the prairies (ever heard of the dirty thirties?).


That's how much colder it's been this particular July," David Phillips, senior climatologist with Environment Canada, told the Leader-Post in a phone interview from Toronto on Thursday.

"This is eight months in a row and still counting in terms of cold temperatures," he continued, explaining that, in every month since December, Regina temperatures have been atypically low.

The fact that the average throughout June at 14.9 C (versus a normal 16.4 C) was still warmer than the first 15 days of July is an indication of just how cold the month has been. Making matters worse, nine of the first 15 July days were rainy.

In addition, the "growing degree day" — a measure of heat units — has only been 72 per cent of normal throughout July so far, versus 85 per cent in June.

"July has been the eye-opener, and in many ways has been more difficult to deal with than any of the previous colder months. You wouldn't live (in Regina) if you didn't think winters were going to be cold. It's not as much of a downer as having a cold July . . . (but) the Roughriders are 2-0, so there's always more than the weather to be thankful for," Phillips added, laughing.

source (http://www.leaderpost.com/Temperatures+Regina+below+average+this+summer/1798220/story.html)

(10 characters?)

[Nasik]

Sorry to burst your bubble FO, but the Canadian prairies have experienced eight months in a row or below average temperatures, including the coldest July on record so far. Let me repeat that - The coldest July EVER! Yes we have been experiencing a drought, which is par for the course in the prairies (ever heard of the dirty thirties?).


Thanks for the clarification - my bad.

The drought situation in the Canadian prairies and parts of the US is serious - very serious. You asked if I knew about the "dirty thirties" or more accurately, the "dust bowl" - of course I've heard of it. I'm from Alberta. However, the current drought is unprecedented:




Drought unprecedented in region's history

Posted By Alexandra Pope

Posted 18 hours ago



newsone@leducrep.com

Leduc County farmers are feeling the pinch on their pocketbooks as the dry weather continues unabated, shattering 50-year records for drought in this region.

Ed Horvath, who raises various livestock on Sunshine Organic Farms near Warburg, said he has already had to purchase feed for his animals from elsewhere in Alberta.

“It’s been terribly dry,” he said. “We have very little hay and very little pasture. I’m hoping it’s going to be okay.”

Horvath doesn’t want this season to become a repeat of 2002. That year, he recalled, he had to go all the way to Peace River to purchase hay because everything in this area would have cost him $100 a bale.

“It still cost me about $50 a bale by the time I got it home,” he said. “It was absolutely terrible.”

Continued After Advertisement Below



When the jetstream shifts and next year, there are record heat waves everywhere, will the skeptics be printing those stories - or will they, as I suspect, suddenly forget to do that.

[dcookcan]

Thanks for the clarification - my bad.

The drought situation in the Canadian prairies and parts of the US is serious - very serious. You asked if I knew about the "dirty thirties" or more accurately, the "dust bowl" - of course I've heard of it. I'm from Alberta. However, the current drought is unprecedented:



When the jetstream shifts and next year, there are record heat waves everywhere, will the skeptics be printing those stories - or will they, as I suspect, suddenly forget to do that.

Well no one can accurately predict what will happen next year. We will have to wait and see. Luckily for me, I have hay to cut and I will probably have enough to sell the extra. I am hoping for a mild winter this year (and a little more rain).
:prayer:

[lycanox]

Canada however is not the entire world.
And considering other parts of the world have experienced near record warm temperatures. Its nothing more than picking the examples that favor your theories.

Nor is eight months long enough to proof anything on the long term concerning the weather. As it could just as easily be just a bad spring.

What all those global cooling folks are doing is nothing more than pointing out that it rains in england and than claim that it means that it must be raining everywhere on the planet. And that is going to last for decades.

[dcookcan]

Canada however is not the entire world.
And considering other parts of the world have experienced near record warm temperatures. Its nothing more than picking the examples that favor your theories.

Nor is eight months long enough to proof anything on the long term concerning the weather. As it could just as easily be just a bad spring.

What all those global cooling folks are doing is nothing more than pointing out that it rains in england and than claim that it means that it must be raining everywhere on the planet. And that is going to last for decades.

What kind of a dumbass post is this? I did not theorise anything. I simply stated a fact in response to an erroneous prior post.

As for the rest of your post, all I have to say is:
Pot - Kettle - Black

[lycanox]

I wasnt much responding to you specifically.
I just grow tired of the continual bringing up of cold weather as evidence that there entire world is cooling down.

[Nasik]

I wasnt much responding to you specifically.
I just grow tired of the continual bringing up of cold weather as evidence that there entire world is cooling down.

I echo that sentiment - people are attempting to use fluctuating, localized weather as "proof" to refute larger climate trends. In order to even entertain this you have to discount or outright ignore a great deal of data, scientific opinion, and put a blindfold on to what's going on elsewhere in the world.

Yeah, it's getting old.

[alpha]

Lycanox

i need some proof please.

on Piers Corbyn and countries where you say average temps are higher.

this is going to run and run until the truth will out.

its a funny old game!

its one of those subjects that no one can be 100% sure who is right and who is wrong, especially us lot.

my vociferous attitude is all aimed at the scumbags at the top. i want a regime change and an end to poverty Worldwide. And because they're all talking carbon taxes and the like and bullshit wind farms it drives me wild with anger!

i still can't believe however, that people on here deny temps have NOT declined in the last 2 years.

just ask yourselves WHY?

I go on gut feeling, and research, admittedly only online in spare time. But, the problem is the climate is SO random and we really have NO CLUE about what effects it.

i have asked repeatedly this question:

show me proof as to what exact temperature effect we have had on temperatures?

i could sing that song again: it goes something like: " come and have a go....

forget increase over 100 years. that means squat! that's history! we're talking immediate history here, THE LAST 2 YEARS. When, supposedly we understand more about the climate than in 1900!

evidence from the Sun, magnetosphere, other planets, sea temps, antarctica, severe storms, atlantic jet stream etc...

weird shit going on!

it just CAN'T be man made!

but Earth expelling heat and energy coming in is masking the true goings on and means we simply cannot get anywhere near understanding what's going on. No one can!

despite higher or lower temps in LOCAL areas, including the UK! i've never mentioned the shit summers we've had here in the last 3 years, or the amazing increase in rain (there's another reason why the seas are rising!!!!!!!): the temps have gone down for 2007, 2008 and 2009 compared to 1998 peak and 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006.

sorry, but that's THE TRUTH

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo

[lycanox]

Lycanox

i need some proof please.

on Piers Corbyn and countries where you say average temps are higher.

this is going to run and run until the truth will out.

its a funny old game!
I have posted a couple of links to higher local average temperatures earlier and on the global scale me and others have already supplied examples enough.

As for Pierce Corbyn.

Here (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/22322/killer-storms-to-lash-Britain) is his prediction for his hurricanes that never happened.
And remember. Any quack can predict cold weather in the winter and sun in the summer. Especially if you keep your method secret for scientific evaluation.



its one of those subjects that no one can be 100% sure who is right and who is wrong, especially us lot.
Actually facts arent arguable. Its not a religion.



my vociferous attitude is all aimed at the scumbags at the top. i want a regime change and an end to poverty Worldwide. And because they're all talking carbon taxes and the like and bullshit wind farms it drives me wild with anger!
So now you have an economical motive?



i still can't believe however, that people on here deny temps have NOT declined in the last 2 years.

just ask yourselves WHY?
Because it does not mean anything on the bigger picture.


I go on gut feeling, and research, admittedly only online in spare time. But, the problem is the climate is SO random and we really have NO CLUE about what effects it.
Yet I give the experts that have an actual education in climate studies.
Have all the information you need to make any statement, and have the best available tools to investigate their claimes, more credit than an Internet hobbyist.


i have asked repeatedly this question:

show me proof as to what exact temperature effect we have had on temperatures?

i could sing that song again: it goes something like: " come and have a go....
SO now it suddenly about that.
I thought we were debating global warming versus global cooling.


forget increase over 100 years. that means squat! that's history! we're talking immediate history here, THE LAST 2 YEARS. When, supposedly we understand more about the climate than in 1900!

That does not mean we don't have data from that long ago to use with the modern climate knowledge. In fact, sailors have been keeping a close log on the water during their trips around the world for more than 200 years now.

Besides. You cant simply ask us to ignore 100 years of data.
As the more data you use from an longer period of time. The more accurate the predictions become.





it just CAN'T be man made!

We are however not discussing whether or not global warming is man made.
But whether or not things are warming at all.


evidence from the Sun, magnetosphere, other planets, sea temps, antarctica, severe storms, atlantic jet stream etc...

weird shit going on!

but Earth expelling heat and energy coming in is masking the true goings on and means we simply cannot get anywhere near understanding what's going on. No one can!
Than it is natural warming.



despite higher or lower temps in LOCAL areas, including the UK! i've never mentioned the shit summers we've had here in the last 3 years, or the amazing increase in rain (there's another reason why the seas are rising!!!!!!!):
And again, increased rain is a symptom of increased temperatures.
As more warmth means more evaporation and thus more rain.

And Rain does not contribute to sea water rise. As most of the rain water evaporates from the oceans in the first place.



the temps have gone down for 2007, 2008 and 2009 compared to 1998 peak and 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006.
And gone up compared to 1700 1800 and 1900.


sorry, but that's THE TRUTH

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeoOnly if you ignore all the facts that speak against you.

[BotchedToad]

Hope this helps...

I'll miss this thread(sniff!)...not

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14504

[TC]

Its all about the money................


Science and Technology News

Government monopsony distorts climate science, says SPPI
The climate industry is costing taxpayers $79 billion and counting

Washington, DC 7/22/2009 09:12 PM GMT (TransWorldNews)



The Science and Public Policy Institute announces the publication of Climate Money, a study by Joanne Nova revealing that the federal Government has a near-monopsony on climate science funding. This distorts the science towards self-serving alarmism. Key findings:

Ø The US Government has spent more than $79 billion of taxpayers’ money since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, propaganda campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks. Most of this spending was unnecessary.


Ø Despite the billions wasted, audits of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of “global warming” theory and to compete with a lavishly-funded, highly-organized climate monopsony. Major errors have been exposed again and again.


Ø Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks, which profit most, are calling for more. Experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 - $10 trillion in the near future. Hot air will soon be the largest single commodity traded on global exchanges.


Ø Meanwhile, in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying just $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government spends on alarmists, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in 2008 alone.


Ø The large expenditure designed to prove the non-existent connection between carbon and climate has created a powerful alliance of self-serving vested interests.


Ø By pouring so much money into pushing a single, scientifically-baseless agenda, the Government has created not an unbiased investigation but a self-fulfilling prophecy.


Ø Sound science cannot easily survive the vice-like grip of politics and finance.

Says Nova, “For the first time, the numbers from government documents have been compiled in one place. It’s time to start talking of “Monopolistic Science”. It’s time to expose the lie that those who claim “to save the planet” are the underdogs. And it’s time to get serious about auditing science, especially when it comes to pronouncements that are used to justify giant government programs and massive movements of money.”

Robert Ferguson, SPPI’s president, says: “This study counts the cost of years of wasted Federal spending on the ‘global warming’ non-problem. Government bodies, big businesses and environmental NGOs have behaved like big tobacco: recruiting, controlling and rewarding their own “group-think” scientists who bend climate modeling to justify the State’s near-maniacal quest for power, control, wealth and forced population reduction.

“Joanne Nova, who wrote our study, speaks for thousands of scientists in questioning whether a clique of taxpayer-funded climate modelers are getting the data right, or just getting the “right” data. Are politicians paying out billions of our dollars for evidence-driven policy-making, or policy-driven evidence-making? The truth is more crucial than ever, because American lives, property and constitutional liberties are at risk.”

[olddragon]

:nana:http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg103/o1ddragon/smilies/fistcash.gif:nana:http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg103/o1ddragon/smilies/fistcash.gif:nana:http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg103/o1ddragon/smilies/fistcash.gif:nana:

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg103/o1ddragon/smilies/cool0012.gifhttp://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg103/o1ddragon/smilies/cool0012.gifhttp://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg103/o1ddragon/smilies/cool0012.gif

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg103/o1ddragon/smilies/sausage.gifhttp://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg103/o1ddragon/smilies/sausage.gif

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg103/o1ddragon/smilies/fistcash.gifhttp://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg103/o1ddragon/smilies/fistcash.gif


Have a beer SR, http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg103/o1ddragon/smilies/drinks.gif

[Nasik]

Hope this helps...

I'll miss this thread(sniff!)...not

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14504

That's a common myth, global warming did not "stop" in 1998. According to NewScientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.html):



In fact, the planet as a whole has warmed since 1998, sometimes even in the years when surface temperatures have fallen
Imagine two people standing at the South Pole, one dressed in full Antarctic gear and the other wearing not much at all. Now imagine that you're looking through one of those infrared thermal imagers that show how hot things are. Which person will look warmest - and which will be frozen solid after a few hours?
The answer, of course, is that the near-naked person will appear hotter: but because they are losing heat fast, they will freeze long before the person dressed more appropriately for the weather.
The point is that you have to look beyond the surface to understand how a body's temperature will change over time - and that's as true of planets as it is of warm-blooded bipeds.
Now take a look at the two main compilations (see figures, right) of global surface temperatures, based on monthly records from weather stations around the world.
According to the dataset of the UK Met Office Hadley Centre (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/#faq) (see figure (http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn14527/dn14527-4_629.jpg)), 1998 was the warmest year by far since records began, but since 2003 there has been slight cooling.
But according to the dataset of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/) (see figure (http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn14527/dn14527-3_652.jpg)), 2005 was the warmest since records began, with 1998 and 2007 tied in second place.
Tracking the heat

Why the difference? The main reason (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/global-trends-and-enso/) is that there are no permanent weather stations in the Arctic Ocean (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826591.800-climate-scientists-go-with-the-floe.html), the place on Earth that has been warming fastest (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12724-arctic-ice-shrinks-to-record-low.html). The Hadley record simply excludes this area, whereas the NASA version assumes its surface temperature is the same as that of the nearest land-based stations.
It is possible that the NASA approach underestimates the rate of warming in the Arctic Ocean, but for the sake of argument let's assume that the Hadley record is the most accurate reflection of changes in global surface temperatures. Doesn't it show that the world has cooled (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/) since the record warmth of 1998, as many claim (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9644)?
Not necessarily. The Hadley record is based only on surface temperatures, so it reflects only what's happening to the very thin layer where air meets the land and sea.
In the long term, what matters is how much heat is gained or lost by the entire planet - what climate scientists call the "top of the atmosphere" radiation budget - and falling surface temperatures do not prove that the entire planet is losing heat.
Swaddling gases

Think again about that scantily clad person at the South Pole. If they put on some clothing, they'll appear cooler to a thermal imager, but what's really happening is that they are losing less heat.
Similarly, if you could look at Earth through a thermal imager, it would appear slightly cooler than it did a few decades ago. The reason is that the outer atmosphere, the stratosphere, is cooler because we've added more "clothing" to the lower atmosphere in the form of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.
As a result, the planet is gaining (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7321-earth-absorbing-more-heat-than-it-radiates.html) as much heat from the sun (http://www.newscientist.com/topic/solar-system) as usual (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650-climate-myths-global-warming-is-down-to-the-sun-not-humans.html) but losing less heat every year as greenhouse gas levels rise (apart from the exceptional periods after major volcanic eruptions, such as El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991).
How do we know? Because the oceans are getting warmer (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/ocean-heat-content-revisions/).
Tricky oceans

Water stores an immense amount of heat compared with air. It takes more than 1000 times as much energy to heat a cubic metre of water by 1 degree Celsius as it does the same volume of air. Since the 1960s, over 90% of the excess heat due to higher greenhouse gas levels has gone into the oceans, and just 3% into warming the atmosphere (see figure 5.4 in the IPCC report (PDF) (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter5.pdf)).
Globally, this means that if the oceans soak up a bit more heat energy than normal, surface air temperatures can fall even though the total heat content of the planet is rising. Conversely, if the oceans soak up less heat than usual, surface temperatures will rise rapidly.
In fact, most of the year-to-year variability in surface temperatures is due to heat sloshing back and forth between the oceans and atmosphere, rather than to the planet as a whole gaining or losing heat.
The record warmth of 1998 (http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html) was not due to a sudden spurt in global warming (http://www.newscientist.com/topic/climate-change) but to a very strong El Niño (see figure, right (http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn14527/dn14527-1_639.jpg)). In normal years, trade winds keep hot water piled up on the western side of the tropical Pacific.
During an El Niño, the winds weaken and the hot water spreads out across the Pacific in a shallow layer (http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/nino_profiles.html), which increases heat transfer to the atmosphere. (During a La Niña, by contrast, as occurred during the early part of 2008, the process is reversed and upwelling cold water in the eastern Pacific soaks up heat from the atmosphere.)

[iulian28ti]

You're reasoning is flawed
No, only one calculation was. And here's the correction. Based on the buoyancy principle and the increase in volume combined with the decrease in density from water to ice, the level remains in fact unchanged. As for the melting of ONLY continental ice being a problem, i am correct.

PS: there is one more thing though. If ice shelves melting are supposed to cause sea level rise, then because of the spring defrost, we would be underwater each spring.



and it does not coincide with the data. While there has been thickening within the interior of the Antarctic - there is significant wasting along the perimeters. The Antarctic has, in fact, experienced a net loss of ice:

From your article...
In a first-of-its-kind study, an international team led by Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., and the University of California, Irvine, estimated changes in Antarctica's ice mass between 1996 and 2006 and mapped patterns of ice loss on a glacier-by-glacier basis. They detected a sharp jump in Antarctica's ice loss, from enough ice to raise global sea level by 0.3 millimeters (.01 inches) can you spell "10 mili-inch"? a year in 1996, to 0.5 millimeters (.02 inches) a year in 2006.
3 to 5 mm between 1996 and 2006.... Sharp jump ? :doh:
It can very well be the effect of more ships, more garbage dumped into the ocean, underwater volcanoes spitting magma on the the ocean floor, or continental ice melting.
[<<--- Less Likely ; Very Likely --->>]

The latter being the most likely, mainly because of this...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
Note that it presents thousands of years, and that the glacial era meant that the whole Earth was covered in ice, that means there was lots of continental ice.


The increase of ice, within the interior, is diminutive in comparison to the overall loss of ice the antarctic is experiencing. Some researchers believe the ozone hole is accounts for the slight augmentation found within the interior

Sorry, but the ice loss in Antarctica and Greenland has been reported in 2008 (2006 if you read the above report) while the increase in ice has been reported in 2009. It offers no poof whether the total ice surface of the planet has increased of decreased.


Reporting in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, scientists from British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and NASA say that while there has been a dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice, Antarctic sea ice has increased by a small amount as a result of the ozone hole delaying the impact of greenhouse gas increases on the climate of the continent.

As for the "dramatic loss of Arctic sea Ice", even if melting ice could somehow avoid the buoyancy principle and increase sea level, that can very well mean even less than Antarctic ice. The northern ice is much thinner than southern ice.

[Nasik]

No, only one calculation was. And here's the correction. Based on the buoyancy principle and the increase in volume combined with the decrease in density from water to ice, the level remains in fact unchanged. As for the melting of ONLY continental ice being a problem, i am correct.

I appreciate that you seem to be a brainy guy with a mathematical aptitude, so please help me out. (bearing in mind that math is not my forte) According to my calculations, given the ocean is 361,000,000 km2, a 6 mm increase would represent a volume of 2166000000000 cubic meters or 2,166 cubic kilometers. Are you sure, that's just boats?

Whatever exotic calculations a person chooses to use, and whatever data and evidence a person chooses to ignore, the fact is the sea is rising - and that my friend, is the coup de grâce for GW skeptics.

[BotchedToad]

I'll stand by my last linked post. Cyclical oscillation makes the most sense over time. Not to the extreme the alarmists would have you believe however. Earth is the master here. We're just pesky bugs that the earth will shake off one day. Reminds me of a bumpersticker around Lake Tahoe; Na (T) ive.

[Nasik]

I'll stand by my last linked post. Cyclical oscillation makes the most sense over time. Not to the extreme the alarmists would have you believe however. Earth is the master here. We're just pesky bugs that the earth will shake off one day. Reminds me of a bumpersticker around Lake Tahoe; Na (T) ive.

Yes, and Bubonic Plague is, relatively speaking, nothing more (size wise) than a pesky bug to humans but look what it does.

http://www.animalpicturesarchive.com/animal/Animated_GIF/Frog/dancing_frog-comic-animated.gif

[olddragon]

Yes, and Bubonic Plague is, relatively speaking, nothing more (size wise) than a pesky bug to humans but look what it does.

Stay clean, take a bath, wash your clothes and it does nothing.

[Nasik]

Stay clean, take a bath, wash your clothes and it does nothing.

That's not exactly true.... An infected flea could bite a clean leg, or a less than clean leg... same with mosquitos and other carriers of the more nasty diseases in our world.

Besides, I've had enough of you, I'm slaying you right now! Behold!

http://www.heathersanimations.com/dragons/zroasting2.gif

[alpha]

Its all about the money................


Science and Technology News

Government monopsony distorts climate science, says SPPI
The climate industry is costing taxpayers $79 billion and counting

Washington, DC 7/22/2009 09:12 PM GMT (TransWorldNews)



The Science and Public Policy Institute announces the publication of Climate Money, a study by Joanne Nova revealing that the federal Government has a near-monopsony on climate science funding. This distorts the science towards self-serving alarmism. Key findings:

Ø The US Government has spent more than $79 billion of taxpayers’ money since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, propaganda campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks. Most of this spending was unnecessary.


Ø Despite the billions wasted, audits of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of “global warming” theory and to compete with a lavishly-funded, highly-organized climate monopsony. Major errors have been exposed again and again.


Ø Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks, which profit most, are calling for more. Experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 - $10 trillion in the near future. Hot air will soon be the largest single commodity traded on global exchanges.


Ø Meanwhile, in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying just $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government spends on alarmists, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in 2008 alone.


Ø The large expenditure designed to prove the non-existent connection between carbon and climate has created a powerful alliance of self-serving vested interests.


Ø By pouring so much money into pushing a single, scientifically-baseless agenda, the Government has created not an unbiased investigation but a self-fulfilling prophecy.


Ø Sound science cannot easily survive the vice-like grip of politics and finance.

Says Nova, “For the first time, the numbers from government documents have been compiled in one place. It’s time to start talking of “Monopolistic Science”. It’s time to expose the lie that those who claim “to save the planet” are the underdogs. And it’s time to get serious about auditing science, especially when it comes to pronouncements that are used to justify giant government programs and massive movements of money.”

Robert Ferguson, SPPI’s president, says: “This study counts the cost of years of wasted Federal spending on the ‘global warming’ non-problem. Government bodies, big businesses and environmental NGOs have behaved like big tobacco: recruiting, controlling and rewarding their own “group-think” scientists who bend climate modeling to justify the State’s near-maniacal quest for power, control, wealth and forced population reduction.

“Joanne Nova, who wrote our study, speaks for thousands of scientists in questioning whether a clique of taxpayer-funded climate modelers are getting the data right, or just getting the “right” data. Are politicians paying out billions of our dollars for evidence-driven policy-making, or policy-driven evidence-making? The truth is more crucial than ever, because American lives, property and constitutional liberties are at risk.”

what can I say?

have TEN beers on me Shortround!

data right? or conveniently right data for THEIR agenda it would SOOOOO obviously seem!

No?

[Nasik]

what can I say?

have TEN beers on me Shortround!

data right? or conveniently right data for THEIR agenda it would SOOOOO obviously seem!

No?

You know, I was going to let this one slide, but since you've quoted the article again, I just can't. It's like a hangnail. It has to be addressed.

The Science and Public Policy Institute (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/)(you can freely visit its website which I've linked) is, according to sourcewatch:



The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a global warming skeptics (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_warming_skeptics) group which appears to primarily be the work of Robert Ferguson (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_Ferguson_%28Science_and_Pub lic_Policy_Institute%29), its President.
[...]
The website of Ferguson's SPPI draws heavily on papers written by Christopher Monckton (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Christopher_Monckton).
Prior to founding SPPI in approximately mid-2007, Ferguson was the Executive Director of the Center for Science and Public Policy (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Science_and_Public_Poli cy) (CSPP), a project of the corporate-funded group, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frontiers_of_Freedom_Institute).


Who is Robert Ferguson you ask? Well, this is interesting:



Ferguson was previously the initial Executive Director of the Center for Science and Public Policy (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Science_and_Public_Poli cy) (CSSP), a project of the corporate-funded Frontiers of Freedom Institute (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frontiers_of_Freedom_Institute) (FOF).[3] (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_Ferguson_%28Science_and_Pub lic_Policy_Institute%29#_note-2) Exxon (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Exxon) had provided $100,000 in 2002 specifically for the "Center for Sound Science and Public Policy" (sic) as well as a further $97,000 for "Global Climate Change Outreach Activities", and a further $35,000 for "Global Climate Change Science Projects";[4] (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_Ferguson_%28Science_and_Pub lic_Policy_Institute%29#_note-3) In subsequent years Exxon continued it support for the project including $50,000 for "Project Support - Sound Science Center" in 2003[5] (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_Ferguson_%28Science_and_Pub lic_Policy_Institute%29#_note-4), $70,000 for "Project Support- Science Center & Climate Change" in 2004;[6] (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_Ferguson_%28Science_and_Pub lic_Policy_Institute%29#_note-5) $140,000 to the organization in 2005 but without a specific amount for CSPP identified, $90,000 for the "Science & Policy Center" in 2006[7] (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_Ferguson_%28Science_and_Pub lic_Policy_Institute%29#_note-6) and $90,000 for "energy literacy" in 2007.[8] (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_Ferguson_%28Science_and_Pub lic_Policy_Institute%29#_note-7)


And who exactly is Christopher Monckton? I'm glad you asked:



Christopher Monckton is the third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley and a former policy advisor to Margaret Thatcher during her years as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. [1] (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Christopher_Monckton#_note-Inconvenient_Truths) He is also a climate skeptic and has written articles for the Science and Public Policy Institute (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institut e), The Guardian (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Guardian), and the American Physical Society (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Physical_Society&action=edit) claiming that global warming is neither man-made nor likely to be catastrophic. His critics, including The Guardian writer George Monbiot (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_Monbiot), point out that Monckton has only a "degree in classics and a diploma in journalism and...no further qualifications." [2] (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Christopher_Monckton#_note-0)


So, an exxon funded history professor in consort with a guy that has a journalist diploma (both openly self-professed climate skeptics), are the trusted disseminators of non-biased information on climate change?

The point is that the article isn't neutral. It's just advocacy.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institut e

[olddragon]

You know, I was going to let this one slide, but since you've quoted the article again, I just can't. It's like a hangnail. It has to be addressed.

The Science and Public Policy Institute (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/)(you can freely visit its website which I've linked) is, according to sourcewatch:



Who is Robert Ferguson you ask? Well, this is interesting:



And who exactly is Christopher Monckton? I'm glad you asked:


So, an exxon funded history professor in consort with a guy that has a journalist diploma (both openly self-professed climate skeptics), are the trusted disseminators of non-biased information on climate change?

The point is that the article isn't neutral. It's just advocacy.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institut e

And who or whom is sourcewatch beholding to?

Who people are is not as important as what they say.
If they are a shit hole group, does it matter if what they say is correct?

[Nasik]

Yes it does actually. What it means is that you have advocacy in the guise of journalism or scientific opinion.

So, yes, it does attenuate the credibility of the article. If you can find something independent to support the allegations, I'm happy to read it.

Shall I start posting Greenpeace articles? Let's see how much purchase that holds with some here.

[TC]

Ya gotta love Lycos comment " Internet Hobbyists" in regards to anyone disagreeing with main stream global climate change. If one took a survey of the political stance of those backing the Status Que spoon feed research, it would be no surprise to find an overwhelming liberal aroma. Its as if their flag of identity hangs on Global warming and the condemnation of human encroachment.

Internet hobbyists, so be it, but arguments inspired by mind numbing political propaganda is a far shot less. At least some of the so called hobbyists have researched work outside the bubble, and posted their theories in an otherwise neutral political position.

Thus far not one of the liberal minded have put up a well thought out post written from their own research, its all cut and paste from some like minded source.....and in a worse case scenario, arguing for the sake of argument.

[Traveler]

Yes there is a climate change taking place. The summers are getting hoter and the winters are getting colder.

When you average out the figures there will not be much change for a global result but the seasonal changes will be a pain.

[lycanox]

Ya gotta love Lycos comment " Internet Hobbyists" in regards to anyone disagreeing with main stream global climate change. If one took a survey of the political stance of those backing the Status Que spoon feed research, it would be no surprise to find an overwhelming liberal aroma. Its as if their flag of identity hangs on Global warming and the condemnation of human encroachment.
And your point is. That simply reading stuff on the Internet qualifies as a top education. That looking at little graphs on the Internet and guessing conclusions is a reasonable scientific method.


Internet hobbyists, so be it, but arguments inspired by mind numbing political propaganda is a far shot less. At least some of the so called hobbyists have researched work outside the bubble, and posted their theories in an otherwise neutral political position.

The same counts for all those creationist theorist. Nibiru followers and NWO conspiracies.

And considering how many times he drags in man made global warming in an debate where it technically isn't even relevant to the debate. And the way he represents global warming as just a political conspiracy only idiots believe in.

I doubt he has a neutral political position either.




Thus far not one of the liberal minded have put up a well thought out post written from their own research, its all cut and paste from some like minded source.....and in a worse case scenario, arguing for the sake of argument.
At least we don't pretend to know it better than the experts.

[iulian28ti]

I appreciate that you seem to be a brainy guy with a mathematical aptitude, so please help me out. (bearing in mind that math is not my forte) According to my calculations, given the ocean is 361,000,000 km2, a 6 mm increase would represent a volume of 2166000000000 cubic meters or 2,166 cubic kilometers. Are you sure, that's just boats?

Whatever exotic calculations a person chooses to use, and whatever data and evidence a person chooses to ignore, the fact is the sea is rising - and that my friend, is the coup de grâce for GW skeptics.

Volume has no relevance if we're looking at sea level.
And yeah, sea level's rising, but not at an alarming rate. :Bow:

Oh, and to answer your question: no, not just ships. Take a look at the post you quoted

[alpha]

And your point is. That simply reading stuff on the Internet qualifies as a top education. That looking at little graphs on the Internet and guessing conclusions is a reasonable scientific method.

the graphs are as plain as day, unless you are BLIND!



And considering how many times he drags in man made global warming in an debate where it technically isn't even relevant to the debate. And the way he represents global warming as just a political conspiracy only idiots believe in.

Relevant to the debate? are you mad!? So you're saying mainstream science, governments and the media have NOT been saying we're the cause of global warming SLASH climate change? have a fekkin word will you!!!

well, duh, yes I AM saying manmade global warming is a political agenda only IDIOTS believe in! the penny has dropped!! woo-hoo!!


I doubt he has a neutral political position either.

are you completely mad? i fuckin HATE politicians and ALL they stand for; western politicians are completely fekkin useless and only in it for themselves. did you not hear about the expenses scandal in the UK!?

i have absolutely NO political agenda other than my own philosophy which is; share the wealth across the globe, meditation for all, legalise cannabis and particularly cannabis oil, free energy, free Internet, hyperspatial travel, desalination plants to every drought stricken region in the World (that would suck out your beloved excess sea levels! we'll drink the fekkin stuff ! ha ha), destroy and ban the AK47, i could go on.....

me, a political agenda.....

fuckin-ell that's the funniest thing i've heard in years!!




At least we don't pretend to know it better than the experts.

what fekkin experts!?

ROFLMFAO

BWWWOOHHAAHAAAAA!!!

:humpin:

[TC]

At least we don't pretend to know it better than the experts.

Pretend? please show us where any theory posted here has been placed as fact..... and at least we present a theory that has some marit, where as you do nothing but desagree based on zip....( oh wait, I forgot your politics...silly me.)

[lycanox]

the graphs are as plain as day, unless you are BLIND!

All I am seeing is a rise in the long term charts.


Relevant to the debate? are you mad!? So you're saying mainstream science, governments and the media have NOT been saying we're the cause of global warming SLASH climate change? have a fekkin word will you!!!

well, duh, yes I AM saying manmade global warming is a political agenda only IDIOTS believe in! the penny has dropped!! woo-hoo!!

However in a debate in whether or not the earth is cooling or not. It has no meaning as, regardless of the cause. There is still warming.


are you completely mad? i fuckin HATE politicians and ALL they stand for; western politicians are completely fekkin useless and only in it for themselves. did you not hear about the expenses scandal in the UK!?

i have absolutely NO political agenda other than my own philosophy which is; share the wealth across the globe, meditation for all, legalise cannabis and particularly cannabis oil, free energy, free Internet, hyperspatial travel, desalination plants to every drought stricken region in the World (that would suck out your beloved excess sea levels! we'll drink the fekkin stuff ! ha ha), destroy and ban the AK47, i could go on....

me, a political agenda.....

fuckin-ell that's the funniest thing i've heard in years!!All of whish have nothing to do with climate change.





Pretend? please show us where any theory posted here has been placed as fact..... and at least we present a theory that has some marit, where as you do nothing but desagree based on zip....( oh wait, I forgot your politics...silly me.)
Your point is? We are not making the claims here.
We are not going around yelling the complete opposite of the current scientific consensus and what is seen in nature. And yelling that everybody who disagrees is either part of some global conspiracy or just plain idiots.

[Nasik]

Ya gotta love Lycos comment " Internet Hobbyists" in regards to anyone disagreeing with main stream global climate change. If one took a survey of the political stance of those backing the Status Que spoon feed research, it would be no surprise to find an overwhelming liberal aroma. Its as if their flag of identity hangs on Global warming and the condemnation of human encroachment.

Internet hobbyists, so be it, but arguments inspired by mind numbing political propaganda is a far shot less. At least some of the so called hobbyists have researched work outside the bubble, and posted their theories in an otherwise neutral political position.

Thus far not one of the liberal minded have put up a well thought out post written from their own research, its all cut and paste from some like minded source.....and in a worse case scenario, arguing for the sake of argument.

People should not be the focus of contempt because, in matters of science and facts, they seek scientific opinion and data.

That is not politics; that is common sense.

[TC]

Your point is? We are not making the claims here.
We are not going around yelling the complete opposite of the current scientific consensus and what is seen in nature. And yelling that everybody who disagrees is either part of some global conspiracy or just plain idiots.

Specifically, I don't recall mentioning either... (conspiracy or nuts when debating this issue) .... care to show me ?

My point is you argue, yet you post nothing in your own hand as to why. Sometimes just for the sake of it, ( your responce to Dcookcan as an example)

[olddragon]

Scientific consensus means what?
The same as racial consensus,
age consensus,
or the real meaning
Political consensus. :vomit:

[TC]

Scientific consensus means what?
The same as racial consensus,
age consensus,
or the real meaning
Political consensus. :vomit:


Buwhhahahahha.... or politically correct...( leaves large turd)

[BotchedToad]

Remember to weigh and tag that puppy SR, so we can tax your Shiiiii-eeeeeet on our way to the next friggin bubble via cap n' trade. J-Ha-Ha!

[TC]

Strange how one should get Neg Rep for suggesting that peoples opinion regarding environmental issues can be influenced by their particular political persuasion, which it most assuredly can be.

I find it dis hearting that untold amounts of name calling and personal attacks go unnoticed, yet one can get neg rep for holding a friendly debate. I'm done with this thread, you guys take all the fun out of it..

[Tired Old Man]

Strange how one should get Neg Rep for suggesting that peoples opinion regarding environmental issues can be influenced by their particular political persuasion, which it most assuredly can be.

I find it dis hearting that untold amounts of name calling and personal attacks go unnoticed, yet one can get neg rep for holding a friendly debate. I'm done with this thread, you guys take all the fun out of it..

Neg Rep's come from people that have nothing better to say.
Children....Stick around , maybe you can teach them.

[DontBeAfraid]

Strange how one should get Neg Rep for suggesting that peoples opinion regarding environmental issues can be influenced by their particular political persuasion, which it most assuredly can be.You suggested that the science is determined by the political affiliation. TOM actually believes this. Politics is not HOW your computer runs...


Neg Rep's come from people that have nothing better to say.You guve out a good many yourself.

[Tired Old Man]

So your saying political influence has nothing to do with science. Follow the money. Even you should know that.
But then again, children have so much to learn.

[DontBeAfraid]

So your saying political influence has nothing to do with science.That is what Im saying. You, however, have been fooled by the money into thinking that certain things are in fact science when they are actually only political will. If you werent a blind old fool you would realize that those with the money to spend and a real interest in the status quo, The oil industry, do not want us to know that green house gases are linked to global warming and that burning gas and oil produces green house gases. They want to put out fake "science" that people like you gobble up. They want to make it a political issue of tree huggin liberals vs "fiscally responsible" conservatives instead of a scientific issue. Guess what, the oil industry collapsing wont ruin the worlds economy anymore than any other advance in technology has. It will just transition what the money is spent on from one thing/person to the next.


But then again, children have so much to learn. And old fools cant learn anything new.

[Tired Old Man]

So your saying the green movement has nothing to do with money or political power ?
You are such a fool. I know it is hard to teach an old dog new tricks.
Who said a fool and his money is soon parted ? It would seem they know you.....

[Nasik]

So your saying the green movement has nothing to do with money or political power ?
You are such a fool. I know it is hard to teach an old dog new tricks.
Who said a fool and his money is soon parted ? It would seem they know you.....

The skeptics are generally the ones who are connected to politics and receive lucrative funding from the coal and oil industry.

Scientists receive grants based on the quality of their proposal; they don't have anything directly to gain by falsifying information.

Your conspiracy theory is fatally flawed also by the sheer overwhelming majority of scientists that now agree the world is warming, and that CO2 contributes to that warming and that man-made emissions are contributing to the CO2 in the atmosphere. Their research is peer reviewed and the data is available for others to study and repeat the results using their own tests.

So, really, I'm trying to keep this on a scientific basis; the people introducing politics as some hidden agenda, are ironically, those that also happen to align with those same groups that aren't geneally science based and do have a political and financial agenda to reposition the global warming debate and sow doubt in the population.

In order for me to entertain what you are proposing I would have to believe that thousands and thousands of scientists across the globe from different disciplines are in some secret conspiracy to skew results to receive more funding - or some such thing. On the contrary, as I mentioned before, the science is pretty concrete and sound - if scientists were really in their lab coats rubbing their hands together looking for cash, they would be promoting uncertainty in their results in order to secure more funding.

Take a step back for a moment and consider how ridiculous this whole policitics angle is.

First, skeptics dispute the science, when they fail then they allege climate is too complicated, nobody can figure it out (except us laymen) and when they fail there, they resort to - it's all a political conspiracy.

Whether you like it or not, it's real. And it's not going to wait around for you to decide the matter internally. I have no illusions that I will persuade people like you or OD, but my hope is, that at least, people will take it upon themselves to at least look into the matter further. It is a serious matter - one that will affect us all.

[BotchedToad]

Politics is sooooo interwoven it's inescapable fact of our daily life. The best/newest scientific discovery ain't squat till it turns a profit. How else can you keep the masses moving in a 'known' direction with any kind of momentum? Things were looking great for the AGW crowd (anthropogenic global warming) until the last few years. The earth said, 'I beg to differ.' Didn't this crap start with 'save the whales' back in the 70's? The earth don't NEED saving. WE DO!!!

[olddragon]

This is the basic premise, "To Save The World".
True pollution needs to be controlled and but the major theme behind every "Green" program is money.

Freaked out you have never answered the question why wealth redistribution will save us? That is the major theme behind the UN study and Al Gores rantings. Money, Money ,Money. Why money....

Germany calls carbon tariffs "eco-imperialism" (http://www.reuters.com/article/internal_ReutersNewsRoom_BehindTheScenes_MOLT/idUSTRE56N1RJ20090724)


Germany called a French idea to slap "carbon tariffs" on products from countries that are not trying to cut greenhouse gases a form of "eco-imperialism" and a direct violation of WTO rules.

The issue of greenhouse tariffs has met bitter opposition from developing countries such as China and India, who count on the developed world to buy their exports as they build their economies in the face of the worst financial crisis in decades.

Matthias Machnig, Germany's State Secretary for the Environment, told a news briefing on Friday that a French push for Europe to impose carbon tariffs on imports from countries that flout rules on carbon emissions would send the wrong signal to the international community.

"There are two problems -- the WTO (World Trade Organization), and the signal would be that this is a new form of eco-imperialism," Machnig said.

"We are closing our markets for their products, and I don't think this is a very helpful signal for the international negotiations."

European environment and energy ministers are meeting in Sweden to try to come up with a single vision of how the 27-member bloc will fight global warming, ahead of a major environment summit in Copenhagen.

The first phase of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on cutting greenhouse gas emissions is set to expire in 2012. Final negotiations on a successor climate change pact will take place in the Danish capital at the end of the year.

U.S. LEGISLATION

The U.S. House of Representatives has already passed legislation that contains carbon tariffs. It would allow the United States to impose duties on imports of carbon-intensive goods such as steel, cement, paper and glass from countries that have not taken steps to reduce their own emissions.

Some say such tariffs could be a backup plan for Europe, should United Nations members fail to reach a deal in Copenhagen.

However, Europe could see some progress on domestic carbon taxes on a national level within the 27-member bloc. Sweden's finance minister, Anders Borg, plans to raise the issue at the next finance ministers' meeting,

Money, that's all they want.

If you pollute you just pay more, simple.

[lycanox]

And the opposite movement doesn't involve money?

[olddragon]

And the opposite movement doesn't involve money?

No Lycca, that's the point, it is totally about money, nothing more.

[Nasik]

Money, that's all they want.

If you pollute you just pay more, simple.

No.

Scientists report on the data - it's up to the people and politicians to act on those findings often through the introduction of legislation.

You would have us believe scientists colluded against DDT; CFC's and asbestos. These things were found by SCIENCE to be harmful and thus, legislation followed to limit and or ban these substances. There was no other connection.

So, I'd appreciate some intellectual honesty from you on this topic.

You'd have us believe scientists are colluding with governments and the weather channel in order to promote alarmist and false theories - which IS ABSURD.

IF COMPANIES CAN'T CLEAN UP THEIR FUCKING ACTS, then guess what, another INNOVATIVE company will come along that can, for less cost to the consumer.

THAT'S THE FREE MARKET SYSTEM.

[Mezurashi]

IF COMPANIES CAN'T CLEAN UP THEIR FUCKING ACTS, then guess what, another INNOVATIVE company will come along that can, for less cost to the consumer.

THAT'S THE FREE MARKET SYSTEM.

back in the old days the Companies that figured out better ways to rape the environment leapt out on top because they were able to get a leg up on their competition.

Free Market is about Profit, nothing more. Just Profit.

and so many 'Scientists' out there today are all about the money that to deny any involvement or intertwining of the various 'systems (economic, scientific, governmental) is about as absurd as assumptions that they are All In It Together.

no, they aren't a Unified Front - rather they are a whole bunch of independent entities trying to wrest as much from a failing system before everything collapses.

so ... it IS all about the money when you get past the political/socio-economic weasel words bannered across the media.

Even the Suzuki Foundation has been found wanting in this regard ... as well as Greenpeace ...

[Nasik]

back in the old days the Companies that figured out better ways to rape the environment leapt out on top because they were able to get a leg up on their competition.

Free Market is about Profit, nothing more. Just Profit.

and so many 'Scientists' out there today are all about the money that to deny any involvement or intertwining of the various 'systems (economic, scientific, governmental) is about as absurd as assumptions that they are All In It Together.

no, they aren't a Unified Front - rather they are a whole bunch of independent entities trying to wrest as much from a failing system before everything collapses.

so ... it IS all about the money when you get past the political/socio-economic weasel words bannered across the media.

Even the Suzuki Foundation has been found wanting in this regard ... as well as Greenpeace ...

Look, I'm not going to argue with you here. You've got a long way to go to convince me that thousands AND THOUSANDS of scientists who agree on the basic premises of global warming are in it for the money or part of a conspiracy.

AND IF you want to start comparing balance sheets, if this debate has degraded that far, I'm more than happy to start doing that. I'll start laying out for you how much money the coal and oil industry make.

As for free market it's profit AND COMPETITION. If there's a market niche, it will be filled, isn't that part of the free market system? If a business can't fulfull a niche then another will come along that can.

That's what I'm talking about.

[lycanox]

back in the old days the Companies that figured out better ways to rape the environment leapt out on top because they were able to get a leg up on their competition.

Free Market is about Profit, nothing more. Just Profit.

and so many 'Scientists' out there today are all about the money that to deny any involvement or intertwining of the various 'systems (economic, scientific, governmental) is about as absurd as assumptions that they are All In It Together.

no, they aren't a Unified Front - rather they are a whole bunch of independent entities trying to wrest as much from a failing system before everything collapses.

so ... it IS all about the money when you get past the political/socio-economic weasel words bannered across the media.

Even the Suzuki Foundation has been found wanting in this regard ... as well as Greenpeace ...

The same problems with an absolute free market arise in the form of slave labor, child abuse, dangerous products and mafia practices.
So the idea of an free market completely unregulated by the government is laughable anyway.

And considering that a clean environment is a lot more important than cheap products. A couple of companies that would go bankrupt and such.
I see absolutely no reason why we shouldn't force companies to clean up their act. Just like we do to combat slave labor.

[alpha]

And your point is. That simply reading stuff on the Internet qualifies as a top education. That looking at little graphs on the Internet and guessing conclusions is a reasonable scientific method.


The same counts for all those creationist theorist. Nibiru followers and NWO conspiracies.

And considering how many times he drags in man made global warming in an debate where it technically isn't even relevant to the debate. And the way he represents global warming as just a political conspiracy only idiots believe in.

I doubt he has a neutral political position either.



At least we don't pretend to know it better than the experts.

dear oh dear!

why won't you LISTEN!?

pollution is NOT man made global warming. We M*U*S*T stop polluting and we MUST have free energy for all. Where's the unfair tax on that!!??

i am sure several people on here simply cannot believe you and FO can't see that Governements see carbon taxes as an easy win, it's a CONVENIENT truth! We cannot believe you can't see that a MULITITUDE of scientists keep using the same old data to produce what is CONVENIENT to their pockets and the whole carbon taxing agenda!

there is no conspiracy it's just the facts of life, it's pure necessity and greed!

Lycanox, please will you just listen for a second; the global average temperatures have gone down markedly in the last 2 years. i believe, like many, this slide will continue until the Sun wakes up again. There are major Earth Changes afoot (and Space for that matter).

It is very easy for AGW scientists to point out extremes and warming that can be attributed to CO2, it is not easy however to prove the extremes are caused by cooling (especially when the filthy lucre is involved!).

time will tell.