PDA

View Full Version : What happened to Global Warming?


Preacher
10-11-2009, 10:34 AM
Hopefully now, we get down to some real questions and discussion. Nothing like blowing up models to make people take a second look.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

his headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.
So what on Earth is going on?
Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.
They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?
During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.
Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun.
But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.
The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.
And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.
He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.
He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.
If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.
Ocean cycles
What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth's great heat stores.
According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.
The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).
For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.
But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.
These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.
So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.
Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling."
So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.
They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature.
But those scientists who are equally passionate about man's influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.
The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.
In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures - all of which are accounted for by its models.
In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.
What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.
To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.


Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers.
But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.
So what can we expect in the next few years?
Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.
It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).
Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.
One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.

Preacher
10-11-2009, 11:01 AM
Didn't you get the memo? They don't call it "global warming" anymore, they call it "global climate change". :wink02:

:chuckle: oh yeah, I forgot! I guess this report did too!

AllD
10-11-2009, 11:20 AM
When I was going to school in the early 1970s all the "experts" were saying we were headed for the "Next Ice Age". Since New York is not covered in glaciers, then something else must be happening to cause the extinction of humans.

It's all BS. The earth warms and cools and there is nothing we can do about it other than put a dome over each continent.

Preacher
10-11-2009, 12:01 PM
When I was going to school in the early 1970s all the "experts" were saying we were headed for the "Next Ice Age". Since New York is not covered in glaciers, then something else must be happening to cause the extinction of humans.

It's all BS. The earth warms and cools and there is nothing we can do about it other than put a dome over each continent.

I freely admit that we have polluted our world, and that we need to do things to curb it. I also admit that pollution will have adverse affects. But the Ozone hole (oops that's not going to work) Global warming (dang it the earth is now cooling) Global climate change stuff really seems to be a crock.

I am absolutely open to having my mind changed on this stuff... but while it is only the scientists that either 1 Work for the UN or 2. are getting PAID in govt. grants to STUDY this stuff, that are claiming global warming, I am going to remain skeptical.

revefsreleets
10-11-2009, 12:05 PM
Global Cooling is actually a SYMPTOM of Global Warming....as it gets cooler, the Earth is actually warming.

(Why not? Makes as much sense as any other part of this POS junk science theory...)

Hines0wnz
10-11-2009, 03:35 PM
What is worse, progressives who passionately believe in the science behind climate change or the conservatives who question it? Or, as a liberal would say, they (conservatives) dont believe in science anyway.

Is this not the classic progressive MO of moving the goalposts to suit their agenda?

- Global cooling in the 70s, debunked by global warming in the 90s

- Global warming in the 90s, changed to climate change in the 2000s

- horrible, manmade influenced weather events! Oops, we mean, uh, any change in the weather we didnt mention or predict is climate change! :doh:

- global cooling over the past decade, but it will get warmer again just you wait and see! GENIUS! :thumbsup:

If there is one thing that these scientists need to admit is that they do not yet fully understand what effects our climate one way or the other.

beSteelmyheart
10-11-2009, 06:17 PM
Now that the scam is so deeply intrenched in the sheeple mentality like the latest fad diet, the corporate eff-alls can take a break & count their earnings while the underlings' scheming goes on & on...

T&B fan
10-11-2009, 06:55 PM
are we not running out of water too ?? some one or thing is .. ( takeing it off the earth ) ???

hindes204
10-11-2009, 06:55 PM
I always liked Michael Creightons point he made in the book Jurassic Park, in the prologue....even better when Charleston Heston reads it(you tube it)...its a bit long but worth the read


http://digg.com/world_news/Charlton_Heston_reads_Michael_Crichton_passage_abo ut_global_warming


You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There's been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away -- all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time.
It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again. Might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It's powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. You think this is the first time that's happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive glass, like fluorine.

When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. Hundred years ago we didn't have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can't imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven't got the humility to try. We've been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we're gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us.

steelreserve
10-11-2009, 08:11 PM
are we not running out of water too ?? some one or thing is .. ( takeing it off the earth ) ???

WHALES. WHALES ARE DRINKING ALL OUR WATER AND EATING OUR SAILORS.

Preacher
10-11-2009, 08:16 PM
WHALES. WHALES ARE DRINKING ALL OUR WATER AND EATING OUR SAILORS.



You are so wrong!! :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Preacher
10-11-2009, 08:17 PM
I always liked Michael Creightons point he made in the book Jurassic Park, in the prologue....even better when Charleston Heston reads it(you tube it)...its a bit long but worth the read


Check out THIS presentation form Creighton on global warming...

http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html

Hammer Of The GODS
10-12-2009, 04:01 AM
What happened to global warming?

Al Gore has already made his money from exploiting the sheeple. So why bother to beat that drum?




.

Vincent
10-12-2009, 06:39 AM
Global Cooling is actually a SYMPTOM of Global Warming....as it gets cooler, the Earth is actually warming.

(Why not? Makes as much sense as any other part of this POS junk science theory...)

They have actually said as much. And to think national and global policies are being formulated on this BS.

To all the "global warming / climate change" numbskulls out there, how do you explain the Viking settlements in Greenland, and why did they call it Greenland?

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/vikings_during_mwp.html

Of course we're experiencing "climate change". It's constantly changing. But man has bupkuss to do with it.

Texasteel
10-12-2009, 06:48 AM
I predicted 10 years ago we would all freeze to death with nothing to eat but spotted owl burgers.

revefsreleets
10-12-2009, 09:13 AM
I always liked Michael Creightons point he made in the book Jurassic Park, in the prologue....even better when Charleston Heston reads it(you tube it)...its a bit long but worth the read


http://digg.com/world_news/Charlton_Heston_reads_Michael_Crichton_passage_abo ut_global_warming




Chichton's "State of Fear" destroys most of the popular Global Warming myths...

St33lersguy
10-15-2009, 05:47 PM
Al Gore's proclamation on global warming is just a money making scam, and global warming is just an excuse for the govt. to tax us with cap and con. Global warming is not real, there was a snow storm today where I live i Eastern PA and it is the MIDDLE OF OCTOBER

SteelCityMan786
10-15-2009, 06:42 PM
Global Warming Al Gore? Then please explain snow in October here in Pennsylvania. We almost never get our first snow until Mid November-Early December.

JackHammer
10-15-2009, 06:53 PM
Didn't you get the memo? They don't call it "global warming" anymore, they call it "global climate change". :wink02:

And that's the root of it all. It doesn't matter what kind of evidence exists to refute global warming. They'll just keep changing the name in order to pass their agenda because this is the next war on drugs, ie another black hole to throw tax dollars into. I'm very conscious of the environment and have a strong belief that we need to be stewards of the land or the land won't reward us for very long(Horticulture students are like that:noidea: ). That's why I support local, more sustainable farms,(ie local businesses for those of you who think people at farmers markets are just yuppies. We're actually supporters of our fellow local citizens and we don't mind paying more. Most of you who think we're yuppies are just a bunch of cheap asses who can fck off AFAIC.), slow food(google it), buying local goods in general, and you guessed it, growing as much of your own produce as possible. If we all did that to the fullest extent possible it would drastically cut down on the amount of shipping and mass storage that we do. Those are just a few of the things that we could do that wouldn't require taxes and gov't mandates. That's the problem with all this Climate Change bullshit. It's just a reason for more taxes, more govt mandates, and more jobs for the EPA(much like the DEA in the "War on Drugs" and the numerous agencies involved in the "War on Terror"). I wish we'd elect more Libertarians who understand the common sense approach. The problem is that most of the American public is lacking in common sense. They're really only capable of repeating what their Shepherd's say(ie Olberman, Maddow, Limbaugh and Beck).

GBMelBlount
10-15-2009, 11:32 PM
And that's the root of it all. It doesn't matter what kind of evidence exists to refute global warming. They'll just keep changing the name in order to pass their agenda because this is the next war on drugs, ie another black hole to throw tax dollars into. I'm very conscious of the environment and have a strong belief that we need to be stewards of the land or the land won't reward us for very long(Horticulture students are like that:noidea: ). That's why I support local, more sustainable farms,(ie local businesses for those of you who think people at farmers markets are just yuppies. We're actually supporters of our fellow local citizens and we don't mind paying more. Most of you who think we're yuppies are just a bunch of cheap asses who can fck off AFAIC.), slow food(google it), buying local goods in general, and you guessed it, growing as much of your own produce as possible. If we all did that to the fullest extent possible it would drastically cut down on the amount of shipping and mass storage that we do. Those are just a few of the things that we could do that wouldn't require taxes and gov't mandates. That's the problem with all this Climate Change bullshit. It's just a reason for more taxes, more govt mandates, and more jobs for the EPA(much like the DEA in the "War on Drugs" and the numerous agencies involved in the "War on Terror"). I wish we'd elect more Libertarians who understand the common sense approach. The problem is that most of the American public is lacking in common sense. They're really only capable of repeating what their Shepherd's say(ie Olberman, Maddow, Limbaugh and Beck).

What do you disagree with in principle that Limbaugh or Beck believe? :noidea:

JackHammer
10-16-2009, 05:40 AM
What do you disagree with in principle that Limbaugh or Beck believe? :noidea:

With Limbaugh it would be a statement he made last year, "Ron Paul is not a conservative." Never bothered to back it up with anything. He was just saying it because he didn't have the balls to actually back the only REAL conservative in the race. If Limbaugh were anything but a fraud, he would have backed Paul. Instead he did what every major media outlet, both liberal and conservative, did and drove another nail into Ron Paul's coffin. Ron Paul didn't need to win to help real conservatives and libertarians. He just need to be heard and none of the major media figures, including Rush, gave him that opportunity.

With Beck I guess it's just his constant conspiracy theorist outlook on everything. If anything, he's steering people away from libertarianism/conservatism by acting like a complete and utter whack job. Way to perpetuate the whacked out libertarian stereotype Glenn. Us real Libertarians appreciate it :fingers:

Both of these guys are frauds who are out to make money . You don't think they're handing out their books or commercial air time for free do you? They're out to help themselves. Nothing more, nothing less.

Shoes
10-16-2009, 07:40 AM
Did someone call for Al?

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z211/vestkap/Gore.jpg

:chuckle::chuckle:

43Hitman
10-16-2009, 07:51 AM
Did someone call for Al?

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z211/vestkap/Gore.jpg

:chuckle::chuckle:

It looks like he is about to do something to that microphone that is inappropriate for children to read.:eek:

GBMelBlount
10-16-2009, 08:02 AM
With Limbaugh it would be a statement he made last year, "Ron Paul is not a conservative." Never bothered to back it up with anything. He was just saying it because he didn't have the balls to actually back the only REAL conservative in the race. If Limbaugh were anything but a fraud, he would have backed Paul. Instead he did what every major media outlet, both liberal and conservative, did and drove another nail into Ron Paul's coffin. Ron Paul didn't need to win to help real conservatives and libertarians. He just need to be heard and none of the major media figures, including Rush, gave him that opportunity.

With Beck I guess it's just his constant conspiracy theorist outlook on everything. If anything, he's steering people away from libertarianism/conservatism by acting like a complete and utter whack job. Way to perpetuate the whacked out libertarian stereotype Glenn. Us real Libertarians appreciate it :fingers:

Both of these guys are frauds who are out to make money . You don't think they're handing out their books or commercial air time for free do you? They're out to help themselves. Nothing more, nothing less.

My wife supported Ron Paul and I think very highly of him as well. I can understand you not liking Rush because of that and I appreciate you clarifying that. What I was really looking for was not so much who he supported, how & why, but what of his generally conservative principles do you disagree with.....especially in light of your other thread....

To put his name in the same sentence with some of the others because you personally dislike him, I can understand, but it came across to me as though you felt that his beliefs as a whole were as ridiculous as someone like olbermann's.

My point is, all of these guys are easy to not like, but at least the majority of what Beck & Rush believe makes sense to me.

THAT is why I like to hear SPECIFICALLY what it is you don't like or that you disagree with.

That way we actually have things to debate, discuss & can then scream at each other in a productive way. :chuckle: :drink:

GBMelBlount
10-16-2009, 08:10 AM
Did someone call for Al?

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z211/vestkap/Gore.jpg

:chuckle::chuckle:

Isn't that his Monica BlewClintsky impersonation?

43Hitman
10-16-2009, 08:12 AM
:applaudit: