Brrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!

[Old Rocks]

Satellites Confirm Half-Century of West Antarctic Warming
Jan. 21, 2009

The Antarctic Peninsula juts into the Southern Ocean, reaching farther north than any other part of the continent. The southernmost reach of global warming was believed to be limited to this narrow strip of land, while the rest of the continent was presumed to be cooling or stable.

Not so, according to a new analysis involving NASA data. In fact, the study has confirmed a trend suspected by some climate scientists.

"Everyone knows it has been warming on the Antarctic Peninsula, where there are lots of weather stations collecting data," said Eric Steig, a climate researcher at the University of Washington in Seattle, and lead author of the study. "Our analysis told us that it is also warming in West Antarctica."

Figure at right: Red represents areas where temperatures have increased the most during the last 50 years, particularly in West Antarctica, while dark blue represents areas with a lesser degree of warming. Temperature changes are measured in degrees Celsius. Credit: NASA/GSFC Scientific Visualization Studio > Print resolution image

The finding is the result of a novel combination of historical temperature data from ground-based weather stations and more recent data from satellites. Steig and colleagues used data from each record to fill in gaps in the other and to reconstruct a 50-year history of surface temperatures across Antarctica.
NASA GISS: Research News: Satellites Confirm Half-Century of West Antarctic Warming

 

[FactFinder]

Underwater Antarctic volcano found - Science- msnbc.com

A previously unknown underwater volcano has been discovered off the coast of Antarctica, the National Science Foundation said Thursday.

Signs of fresh flows
While large areas were colonized by submarine life, none was found on dark rock around the volcano itself, indicating that lava had flowed fairly recently.

In addition, dredges recovered abundant fresh basalt, a volcanic rock. It normally would be rapidly acted upon and transformed by seawater.

Highly sensitive temperature probes moving continuously across the bottom of the volcano showed signs of geothermal heating of seawater, according to the agency.

 

[Sinatra]

Yes, a small portion of the Antarctic has shown warming - that is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the vast majority of the Antarctic has shown cooling - and that the wester peninsula warming might in fact be influenced by volcanic activity.

Factfinder has done an excellent job of outlining the decided fallibility of the Hansen data - Hansen's figures are self-motivated, not of science, but of a pre-determined agenda.

It is also unwise to discount the clear trend of cooling United States data as it is the most complete - we have the highest number of temperature recording stations and as such, give the most accurate data overall - particular when compared to other parts of the world where much of the data is speculative.

We have had a number of cooler than normal years, all of which disputes the gloom n doom projections of increased warming. In the 1990s, reports indicated the arctic ice "could melt away" - that of course has proven ridiculous, as ice coverage has exceeded all of those estimates.

When all of the past projections that were made by the global warming proponents as recently as the last decade have proven false, we see how absurd the so-called science has been.

Great job Factfinder - you are kicking butt today!

 

[k2skier]

NASA GISS: Research News: 2008 Was Earth's Coolest Year Since 2000

2008 Was Earth's Coolest Year Since 2000

Left: Annual-mean global-mean anomalies. Right: Global map of surface temperature anomalies for 2008. Click image to enlarge. Credit: NASA GISS

The ten warmest years on record have all occurred between 1997 and 2008.

The GISS analysis found that the global average surface air temperature was 0.44°C (0.79°F) above the global mean for 1951 to 1980, the baseline period for the study. Most of the world was either near normal or warmer in 2008 than the norm. Eurasia, the Arctic, and the Antarctic Peninsula were exceptionally warm (see figures), while much of the Pacific Ocean was cooler than the long-term average.

The relatively low temperature in the tropical Pacific was due to a strong La Niña that existed in the first half of the year, the research team noted. La Niña and El Niño are opposite phases of a natural oscillation of equatorial Pacific Ocean temperatures over several years. La Niña is the cool phase. The warmer El Niño phase typically follows within a year or two of La Niña.

The temperature in the United States in 2008 was not much different than the 1951-1980 mean, which makes it cooler than all the previous years this decade.



Any more false opinions you'd care to share with us?

Now skier you seem a reasonable soul. Would you agree that if you have just climbed Everest to it peak and have just started the descent you are still at some of the highest elevations but descending you are.

Yes, to answer your question. 10 years isn't long enough to draw any sort of accurate cooling trend; can't you agree to that? Especially when ten of the warmest years on record have all occurred between 1997 and 2008. If in 15-20 years the warming plateaus and starts the temps start dropping then you could draw the conclusion that we may be in a cooling trend. Now we are still in a warming trend, but we have had some years that cooled some. The only constant in our weather is that's it's always changing, very dynamic planet we're on, it will get hotter some day and it will get much cooler some day, but it will always change.

 

[Sinatra]

Yes, a small portion of the Antarctic has shown warming - that is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the vast majority of the Antarctic has shown cooling - and that the wester peninsula warming might in fact be influenced by volcanic activity.

Factfinder has done an excellent job of outlining the decided fallibility of the Hansen data - Hansen's figures are self-motivated, not of science, but of a pre-determined agenda.

It is also unwise to discount the clear trend of cooling United States data as it is the most complete - we have the highest number of temperature recording stations and as such, give the most accurate data overall - particular when compared to other parts of the world where much of the data is speculative.

We have had a number of cooler than normal years, all of which disputes the gloom n doom projections of increased warming. In the 1990s, reports indicated the arctic ice "could melt away" - that of course has proven ridiculous, as ice coverage has exceeded all of those estimates.

When all of the past projections that were made by the global warming proponents as recently as the last decade have proven false, we see how absurd the so-called science has been.

Great job Factfinder - you are kicking butt today!

x2

 

[DavidS]

The ten warmest years on record have all occurred between 1997 and 2008.

They key part of that is: "on record."

How long have these records been kept track for? How accurate are they? How was the information gathered and compiled?

You see, you're not asking that. You're just blindly eating the manure they're feeding you and saying it tastes like chocolate because that's what they're saying to you. If you would bother to actually research this and see - "Hey, maybe records kept before the invention of electricity aren't all that accurate."

The GISS analysis found that the global average surface air temperature was 0.44°C (0.79°F) above the global mean for 1951 to 1980, the baseline period for the study. Most of the world was either near normal or warmer in 2008 than the norm.

I reject the term "normal."

We have no idea what's normal.

Out of the 150 years we've been taking records, only part of those years are actually accurate. If I were to judge your entire personality based on one second of interaction with you, I would be nuts. That's what we're doing here. We have no idea what's "normal" or "not normal." We haven't been paying enough attention.

Eurasia, the Arctic, and the Antarctic Peninsula were exceptionally warm (see figures), while much of the Pacific Ocean was cooler than the long-term average. The relatively low temperature in the tropical Pacific was due to a strong La Niña that existed in the first half of the year, the research team noted. La Niña and El Niño are opposite phases of a natural oscillation of equatorial Pacific Ocean temperatures over several years. La Niña is the cool phase. The warmer El Niño phase typically follows within a year or two of La Niña.

Thank you for copying and pasting. What you're also completely missing is that during the past 10 years, we had an El Nino (warming) in 1997-1998 which was one of the warmest years on record. We also had El Nino's from 2003 - 2007, with one of them being a moderate event in 2005 which led to one of the biggest hurricane seasons on record. So wait - you're telling me that this anomoly of cold air is only because of La Nina - which we've had since the last El Nino faded out. But you're not saying that we've been warm many of the years in the past 10 years because of El Nino. You're saying that the reason we've been warm was because of global warming - yet you're also not saying that during the time when we had an ENSO neutral, which was neither El Nino or La Nina, our temperatures were very close to average. So, could it be that when we warm it's because of El Nino and that when we cool it's because of La Nina and that the Earth is naturally warming and cooling itself?

And now you're going to ask what CAUSES the ENSO to change - i.e. what causes El Nino or La Nina. We know what happens when either of them show up, but we don't know what CAUSES them. Yes, yes, waters cool and warm - but what causes the waters to cool and warm? We don't know yet. It could be releated to sunspots, it could be releated to oceanic subsurface temperatures that are cooler than normal in El Nino periods because of the increase of Typhoons due to the warming which causes La Nina periods which cause warming in subsurface temperatures due to lack of Typhoons which causes El Nino and on and on. Typhoons cause upwelling, basically digging up the old water that's below the surface water and putting it on top. When there are more typhoons, the water is cooler because the Typhoons cause the water to cool due to the upwelling.

There is still soooooo much research to be done in meterology. We understand so little about hurricanes and tornadoes and even the most simple cloud we understand so little about. We understand so little about the Earth's climate - to speculate that we have any inkling about what's going on - is complete phoowey. We have NO idea. There are still far too many variables. Besides, with a -PDO during a La Nina phase, we are still in for one more weak La Nina winter next year of the PDO stays negative while the NAO stays positive.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, a small portion of the Antarctic has shown warming - that is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the vast majority of the Antarctic has shown cooling - and that the wester peninsula warming might in fact be influenced by volcanic activity.

Factfinder has done an excellent job of outlining the decided fallibility of the Hansen data - Hansen's figures are self-motivated, not of science, but of a pre-determined agenda.

It is also unwise to discount the clear trend of cooling United States data as it is the most complete - we have the highest number of temperature recording stations and as such, give the most accurate data overall - particular when compared to other parts of the world where much of the data is speculative.

We have had a number of cooler than normal years, all of which disputes the gloom n doom projections of increased warming. In the 1990s, reports indicated the arctic ice "could melt away" - that of course has proven ridiculous, as ice coverage has exceeded all of those estimates.

When all of the past projections that were made by the global warming proponents as recently as the last decade have proven false, we see how absurd the so-called science has been.

Great job Factfinder - you are kicking butt today!

Absolutely disputed and shown to be wrong.

NASA GISS: Research News: Satellites Confirm Half-Century of West Antarctic Warming



Satellites Confirm Half-Century of West Antarctic Warming
Jan. 21, 2009

The Antarctic Peninsula juts into the Southern Ocean, reaching farther north than any other part of the continent. The southernmost reach of global warming was believed to be limited to this narrow strip of land, while the rest of the continent was presumed to be cooling or stable.

Not so, according to a new analysis involving NASA data. In fact, the study has confirmed a trend suspected by some climate scientists.

"Everyone knows it has been warming on the Antarctic Peninsula, where there are lots of weather stations collecting data," said Eric Steig, a climate researcher at the University of Washington in Seattle, and lead author of the study. "Our analysis told us that it is also warming in West Antarctica."

Figure at right: Red represents areas where temperatures have increased the most during the last 50 years, particularly in West Antarctica, while dark blue represents areas with a lesser degree of warming. Temperature changes are measured in degrees Celsius. Credit: NASA/GSFC Scientific Visualization Studio > Print resolution image

The finding is the result of a novel combination of historical temperature data from ground-based weather stations and more recent data from satellites. Steig and colleagues used data from each record to fill in gaps in the other and to reconstruct a 50-year history of surface temperatures across Antarctica.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes there must be 1st year ice before there is 2nd and thicker. Did you happen to see that there is 2nd year ice left from last year?

Why yes, I surely did, and you can, also. Here is a link and information to the very rapid decline in ice the last 40 years.


Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis
Sea ice young and thin as melt season begins

How vulnerable is the ice cover as we go into the summer melt season? To answer this question, scientists also need information about ice thickness. Indications of winter ice thickness, commonly derived from ice age estimates, reveal that the ice is thinner than average, suggesting that it is more susceptible to melting away during the coming summer.

As the melt season begins, the Arctic Ocean is covered mostly by first-year ice, which formed this winter, and second-year ice, which formed during the winter of 2007 to 2008. First-year ice in particular is thinner and more prone to melting away than thicker, older, multi-year ice. This year, ice older than two years accounted for less than 10% of the ice cover at the end of February. From 1981 through 2000, such older ice made up an average of 30% of the total sea ice cover at this time of the year.

While ice older than two years reached record lows, the fraction of second-year sea ice increased compared to last winter. Some of this second-year ice will survive the summer melt season to replenish the Arctic's store of older ice; however, in recent years less young ice has made it through the summer. To restore the amount of older ice to pre-2000 levels, large amounts of this young ice would need to endure through summer for several years in a row.

But conditions may not always favor the survival of second-year and older ice. Each winter, winds and ocean currents move some sea ice out of the Arctic ocean. This winter, some second-year ice survived the 2008 melt season only to be pushed out of the Arctic by strong winter winds. Based on sea ice age data from Jim Maslanik and Chuck Fowler at the University of Colorado, since the end of September 2008, 390,000 square kilometers (150,000 square miles) of second-year ice and 190,000 square kilometers (73,000 square miles) of older (more than two years old) ice moved out of the Arctic. View animation (1.1 MB).

 

[Old Rocks]

The ten warmest years on record have all occurred between 1997 and 2008.

They key part of that is: "on record."

How long have these records been kept track for? How accurate are they? How was the information gathered and compiled?

You see, you're not asking that. You're just blindly eating the manure they're feeding you and saying it tastes like chocolate because that's what they're saying to you. If you would bother to actually research this and see - "Hey, maybe records kept before the invention of electricity aren't all that accurate."

The GISS analysis found that the global average surface air temperature was 0.44°C (0.79°F) above the global mean for 1951 to 1980, the baseline period for the study. Most of the world was either near normal or warmer in 2008 than the norm.

I reject the term "normal."

We have no idea what's normal.

Out of the 150 years we've been taking records, only part of those years are actually accurate. If I were to judge your entire personality based on one second of interaction with you, I would be nuts. That's what we're doing here. We have no idea what's "normal" or "not normal." We haven't been paying enough attention.

Eurasia, the Arctic, and the Antarctic Peninsula were exceptionally warm (see figures), while much of the Pacific Ocean was cooler than the long-term average. The relatively low temperature in the tropical Pacific was due to a strong La Niña that existed in the first half of the year, the research team noted. La Niña and El Niño are opposite phases of a natural oscillation of equatorial Pacific Ocean temperatures over several years. La Niña is the cool phase. The warmer El Niño phase typically follows within a year or two of La Niña.

Thank you for copying and pasting. What you're also completely missing is that during the past 10 years, we had an El Nino (warming) in 1997-1998 which was one of the warmest years on record. We also had El Nino's from 2003 - 2007, with one of them being a moderate event in 2005 which led to one of the biggest hurricane seasons on record. So wait - you're telling me that this anomoly of cold air is only because of La Nina - which we've had since the last El Nino faded out. But you're not saying that we've been warm many of the years in the past 10 years because of El Nino. You're saying that the reason we've been warm was because of global warming - yet you're also not saying that during the time when we had an ENSO neutral, which was neither El Nino or La Nina, our temperatures were very close to average. So, could it be that when we warm it's because of El Nino and that when we cool it's because of La Nina and that the Earth is naturally warming and cooling itself?

And now you're going to ask what CAUSES the ENSO to change - i.e. what causes El Nino or La Nina. We know what happens when either of them show up, but we don't know what CAUSES them. Yes, yes, waters cool and warm - but what causes the waters to cool and warm? We don't know yet. It could be releated to sunspots, it could be releated to oceanic subsurface temperatures that are cooler than normal in El Nino periods because of the increase of Typhoons due to the warming which causes La Nina periods which cause warming in subsurface temperatures due to lack of Typhoons which causes El Nino and on and on. Typhoons cause upwelling, basically digging up the old water that's below the surface water and putting it on top. When there are more typhoons, the water is cooler because the Typhoons cause the water to cool due to the upwelling.

There is still soooooo much research to be done in meterology. We understand so little about hurricanes and tornadoes and even the most simple cloud we understand so little about. We understand so little about the Earth's climate - to speculate that we have any inkling about what's going on - is complete phoowey. We have NO idea. There are still far too many variables. Besides, with a -PDO during a La Nina phase, we are still in for one more weak La Nina winter next year of the PDO stays negative while the NAO stays positive.

We had a moderate El Nino in 2005, and, by some records, that year was warmer than 1998. In 1998, we had one of the strongest El Ninos ever recorded. But in 2008, we had both a solar minimum and a strong and persistant La Nina. 2008 should have been a very cold year, not the eighth warmest in the last 150 years.

In other words, the years that should be cold, are way too warm, and the years that should be warm, are hot, the years that should be hot, well, they break records.

 

[Sinatra]

Brrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!

I wish we could get some nice global warming around here!

It's too damn cold!

World Climate Report » Has the climate recently shifted?

 

[DavidS]

The ten warmest years on record have all occurred between 1997 and 2008.

They key part of that is: "on record."

How long have these records been kept track for? How accurate are they? How was the information gathered and compiled?

You see, you're not asking that. You're just blindly eating the manure they're feeding you and saying it tastes like chocolate because that's what they're saying to you. If you would bother to actually research this and see - "Hey, maybe records kept before the invention of electricity aren't all that accurate."



I reject the term "normal."

We have no idea what's normal.

Out of the 150 years we've been taking records, only part of those years are actually accurate. If I were to judge your entire personality based on one second of interaction with you, I would be nuts. That's what we're doing here. We have no idea what's "normal" or "not normal." We haven't been paying enough attention.

Eurasia, the Arctic, and the Antarctic Peninsula were exceptionally warm (see figures), while much of the Pacific Ocean was cooler than the long-term average. The relatively low temperature in the tropical Pacific was due to a strong La Niña that existed in the first half of the year, the research team noted. La Niña and El Niño are opposite phases of a natural oscillation of equatorial Pacific Ocean temperatures over several years. La Niña is the cool phase. The warmer El Niño phase typically follows within a year or two of La Niña.

Thank you for copying and pasting. What you're also completely missing is that during the past 10 years, we had an El Nino (warming) in 1997-1998 which was one of the warmest years on record. We also had El Nino's from 2003 - 2007, with one of them being a moderate event in 2005 which led to one of the biggest hurricane seasons on record. So wait - you're telling me that this anomoly of cold air is only because of La Nina - which we've had since the last El Nino faded out. But you're not saying that we've been warm many of the years in the past 10 years because of El Nino. You're saying that the reason we've been warm was because of global warming - yet you're also not saying that during the time when we had an ENSO neutral, which was neither El Nino or La Nina, our temperatures were very close to average. So, could it be that when we warm it's because of El Nino and that when we cool it's because of La Nina and that the Earth is naturally warming and cooling itself?

And now you're going to ask what CAUSES the ENSO to change - i.e. what causes El Nino or La Nina. We know what happens when either of them show up, but we don't know what CAUSES them. Yes, yes, waters cool and warm - but what causes the waters to cool and warm? We don't know yet. It could be releated to sunspots, it could be releated to oceanic subsurface temperatures that are cooler than normal in El Nino periods because of the increase of Typhoons due to the warming which causes La Nina periods which cause warming in subsurface temperatures due to lack of Typhoons which causes El Nino and on and on. Typhoons cause upwelling, basically digging up the old water that's below the surface water and putting it on top. When there are more typhoons, the water is cooler because the Typhoons cause the water to cool due to the upwelling.

There is still soooooo much research to be done in meterology. We understand so little about hurricanes and tornadoes and even the most simple cloud we understand so little about. We understand so little about the Earth's climate - to speculate that we have any inkling about what's going on - is complete phoowey. We have NO idea. There are still far too many variables. Besides, with a -PDO during a La Nina phase, we are still in for one more weak La Nina winter next year of the PDO stays negative while the NAO stays positive.

We had a moderate El Nino in 2005, and, by some records, that year was warmer than 1998. In 1998, we had one of the strongest El Ninos ever recorded. But in 2008, we had both a solar minimum and a strong and persistant La Nina. 2008 should have been a very cold year, not the eighth warmest in the last 150 years.

In other words, the years that should be cold, are way too warm, and the years that should be warm, are hot, the years that should be hot, well, they break records.

You're over-simplifying what causes temperatures to go up and down. Our temperatures aren't based 100% on ENSO events. Yes, they're influential, but not as influential as the NAO, PNA, PDO, MJO, SST's, sunspots, placement of the polar jet, if there's a split jet, etc. Last winter, we had a HUGE ridge over the SE of the United States.

In order for tomorrow to reach 60 degrees in NYC, several a dozen things need to happen. Not one. Please learn meteorology before coming onto a forum and trying to tell me that because we had a moderate La Nina event last year, we should be cold. Because I'll tell you the SE Ridge, the +NAO and -PDO, lack of kelvin waves, and an MJO that was well above average had more to do with our temperatures last year than La Nina.

 

[edthecynic]

Yes, yes, waters cool and warm - but what causes the waters to cool and warm? We don't know yet. It could be releated to sunspots

Sunspots can be ruled out.

 

[KittenKoder]

Actually, there could still be a connection, radiation doesn't travel instantly from the sun to the earth. However, one flaw with environuts is this: they are looking for only one influence while ignoring all other possible influences as well.

 

[Old Rocks]

You're over-simplifying what causes temperatures to go up and down. Our temperatures aren't based 100% on ENSO events. Yes, they're influential, but not as influential as the NAO, PNA, PDO, MJO, SST's, sunspots, placement of the polar jet, if there's a split jet, etc. Last winter, we had a HUGE ridge over the SE of the United States.


David S;
In order for tomorrow to reach 60 degrees in NYC, several a dozen things need to happen. Not one. Please learn meteorology before coming onto a forum and trying to tell me that because we had a moderate La Nina event last year, we should be cold. Because I'll tell you the SE Ridge, the +NAO and -PDO, lack of kelvin waves, and an MJO that was well above average had more to do with our temperatures last year than La Nina.
.........................................................................................................

However, we still have warm years in El Nino periods, and cool years in La Nina periods. That there are other factors that determine how warm or how cold is a fact. That these factors seem to be out of sync, in that while we still are getting the variation from year to year, the overall temperature continues to rise, both in the atmosphere and oceans.

 

[edthecynic]

The Lower 48 is about 2% of the worlds surface. In 1934, we had a very warm year, yet the rest of the world did not. We had a cool 2008, yet, for the world, 2008 tied with 2001 as the eighth warmest on record.

 

[KittenKoder]

You're over-simplifying what causes temperatures to go up and down. Our temperatures aren't based 100% on ENSO events. Yes, they're influential, but not as influential as the NAO, PNA, PDO, MJO, SST's, sunspots, placement of the polar jet, if there's a split jet, etc. Last winter, we had a HUGE ridge over the SE of the United States.


David S;
In order for tomorrow to reach 60 degrees in NYC, several a dozen things need to happen. Not one. Please learn meteorology before coming onto a forum and trying to tell me that because we had a moderate La Nina event last year, we should be cold. Because I'll tell you the SE Ridge, the +NAO and -PDO, lack of kelvin waves, and an MJO that was well above average had more to do with our temperatures last year than La Nina.
.........................................................................................................

However, we still have warm years in El Nino periods, and cool years in La Nina periods. That there are other factors that determine how warm or how cold is a fact. That these factors seem to be out of sync, in that while we still are getting the variation from year to year, the overall temperature continues to rise, both in the atmosphere and oceans.

Here's the thing, your data is also based on the "one cause" flaw, so far everything you have shown hinges on this, which I pointed out is why it's inaccurate.

 

[edthecynic]

Actually, there could still be a connection, radiation doesn't travel instantly from the sun to the earth. However, one flaw with environuts is this: they are looking for only one influence while ignoring all other possible influences as well.

Do you mean like deniers looking only at the only major cool area on the entire globe and using that one cool area to declare the warmest decade in the history of direct instrument measurement a decade of cooling?

 

[edthecynic]

You're over-simplifying what causes temperatures to go up and down. Our temperatures aren't based 100% on ENSO events. Yes, they're influential, but not as influential as the NAO, PNA, PDO, MJO, SST's, sunspots, placement of the polar jet, if there's a split jet, etc. Last winter, we had a HUGE ridge over the SE of the United States.


David S;
In order for tomorrow to reach 60 degrees in NYC, several a dozen things need to happen. Not one. Please learn meteorology before coming onto a forum and trying to tell me that because we had a moderate La Nina event last year, we should be cold. Because I'll tell you the SE Ridge, the +NAO and -PDO, lack of kelvin waves, and an MJO that was well above average had more to do with our temperatures last year than La Nina.
.........................................................................................................

However, we still have warm years in El Nino periods, and cool years in La Nina periods. That there are other factors that determine how warm or how cold is a fact. That these factors seem to be out of sync, in that while we still are getting the variation from year to year, the overall temperature continues to rise, both in the atmosphere and oceans.

 

[KittenKoder]

Actually, there could still be a connection, radiation doesn't travel instantly from the sun to the earth. However, one flaw with environuts is this: they are looking for only one influence while ignoring all other possible influences as well.

Do you mean like deniers looking only at the only major cool area on the entire globe and using that one cool area to declare the warmest decade in the history of direct instrument measurement a decade of cooling?

Not saying all us who see that it's a hoax are all basing it on global science, but that does not make your angle any more valid. Factor in all sciences to see the truth and why we really should do less than what we are doing. First factor in where the scientists get their funding and look at those who have lost funding for going against them using the same science. Then look into mass extinctions and their causes, then their results and the triggers for adaptation in species, then look into all the possible causes of temperature changes and air quality, then look into the real effects of the techniques we are using (primarily the most enforced ones like recycling, voluntary ones don't matter to me). Adding all of this up and you get a better picture. I have posted lengthy reasonings as to why we should let it be and completely drop all this, but these are always ignored, because they tend to use logic instead of "pop-culture" scientific findings. The thing is, you have to do the work yourself, you are currently swallowing what is being fed and that is counter productive to science, it goes against all our advances. Never has a great scientific advancement come from a "popular" scientist, and it never will, truth isn't popular. Environmentalism is popular, it's us who go against it that are not.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And scientists admitting earth's temperatures have remained stagnant this decade, with a current cooling trend that could very well extend out to a 30-year cooling trend. Of course they also warn that after these 30 years, global warming could be back more than ever. (strike up the doom n gloom music here)

Of particular note are these scientists admitting they really have no clue why the earth has cooled in recent years. Folks, they have never really had a clue - man-made global warming is merely another religion. Al Gore is its savior - Hansen its John-the-Baptist - and the IPCC its version of the Medieval Catholic Church.

Global Warming: On Hold?: Discovery News

Hell even an infidel like myself knows the reasons. We are at a solar minimum. An extended one. So far in 2009 alone there had been 90 days without sunspots. Corresponding with that is the Pacific Decadal Ocillation. That sucker has shifted and is expected to provide us poor souls with 30 years of cooling.

WAIT a minute, according to the Global Warming whack jobs the Sun had NOTHING to do with the past warming trend, but NOW according to the same people the Sun does have something to do with the cooling. Got it, IGNORE the man behind the curtain.....