Experts: Cold snap doesn't disprove global warming

[Chris]

They are not all not all lying to us. 31,000 of them are honestly skeptical of "unproved" science.

The old Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine online petition?



There's also a picture of Big Foot online.

 

[Chris]

No, the intellectual dishonesty on this board is that the scientists are all lying to us for some arcane conspiracy.

Nobody here has ever said that, dickless.

The simple truth is that most people that have lived more than half a century can see major changes in the environment around them. Here on the West Coast, simply looking at the mountain glaciers, from what they were in the '50s to present is enough to tell you that there is a major warming underway.

The simple truths are:

1) Correlation doesn't equal causation.

2) The global climate is not now nor has ever been static.

3) 50 years of data collection is irrelevant in the millions of years of the existence of the planet.

4) Nobody has ever offered up what the "ideal" temperature of the Earf should be.

5) There is no evidence whatsoever you will except that will disprove the hoax, other than that which comes from the hoaxers themselves.

There is no hoax.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. This was proven experimentally in 1859.

CO2 has increased 40% in the last 200 years. We continue to add billions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.

The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, thus we have a colder winter...as I predicted.

Will the Sun continue at its reduced level of activity or not? If we are headed for a Maunder Minimum, then CO2 might help us. If not, then the ever increasing amount of CO2 might cause the poles to melt and flood the coastlands.

 

[Foxfyre]

No, the intellectual dishonesty on this board is that the scientists are all lying to us for some arcane conspiracy.

Nobody here has ever said that, dickless.

The simple truth is that most people that have lived more than half a century can see major changes in the environment around them. Here on the West Coast, simply looking at the mountain glaciers, from what they were in the '50s to present is enough to tell you that there is a major warming underway.

The simple truths are:

1) Correlation doesn't equal causation.

2) The global climate is not now nor has ever been static.

3) 50 years of data collection is irrelevant in the millions of years of the existence of the planet.

4) Nobody has ever offered up what the "ideal" temperature of the Earf should be.

5) There is no evidence whatsoever you will except that will disprove the hoax, other than that which comes from the hoaxers themselves.

There is no hoax.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. This was proven experimentally in 1859.

CO2 has increased 40% in the last 200 years. We continue to add billions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.

The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, thus we have a colder winter...as I predicted.

Will the Sun continue at its reduced level of activity or not? If we are headed for a Maunder Minimum, then CO2 might help us. If not, then the ever increasing amount of CO2 might cause the poles to melt and flood the coastlands.

We will have plenty of time to adjust to higher water at the coastlines if that in fact should occur. If the Arctic ice cap should melt completely, however, it would not raise ocean levels one centimeter any more than ice melting in your glass causes the level of liquid to rise.

Parts of Anarctica are melting while other parts have been cooling with ice increasing over the last several decades. If the ice didn't melt every now and then, however, eventually the entire southern hemisphere would be covered in ice, so ice melt is not of any concern at this time.

Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking | The Australian

We simply have no evidence of any impending catastrophic disaster re significant climate change, and there is certainly insufficient evidence to justify draconian forced measures to take away the people's freedoms, choices, options, and opportunities and doom whole populations to more generations of crushing poverty. Whether or not the climate is cooling at this time, I certainly hope cooler heads prevail in this debate before our collective governments of the world pull one of the worst collosal mass blunders ever.

 

[Old Rocks]

Climate Feedback: Is east Antarctic ice melting?

Is east Antarctic ice melting?
Daniel Cressey; cross-posted from The Great Beyond

The ice sheet covering east Antarctica may have been melting since 2006, according to new research, contradicting previous suggestions that it has remained stable or even grown in mass.

Using measurements for 2002 to 2009 from a twin pair of satellites, researchers at the University of Texas at Austin in Austin, Texas, say east Antarctica is losing mass at about 58 gigatonnes a year. Most of the loss appears to be from coastal regions and to stem from increased ice loss post 2006.

Previous studies have generally used satellites to measure elevation or movement of ice. The new study - published in Nature Geoscience - instead looks at the Earth’s gravity field and uses that to work out how much ice is there. It also suggests that 132 Gt of the total annual ice loss of 190 Gt per year is coming from the west.

Although there are uncertainties in the data, the new estimates of ice loss are on average consistent with previous calculations, “but, in contrast to previous estimates, they indicate that as a whole, Antarctica may soon be contributing significantly more to global sea-level rise”, the researchers write in their paper

 

[concept]

Climate Feedback: Is east Antarctic ice melting?

No.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1889833-post5.html

 

[Old Rocks]

So NASA is wrong. The article in Geoscience is wrong. Only Concept knows the truth.

Except that that measurements are still being made, and as more data comes in, you will be proven to be as clueless as the rest of the idiots that deny reality based on their ideological beliefs.

 

[concept]

So NASA is wrong. The article in Geoscience is wrong. Only Concept knows the truth.

Except that that measurements are still being made, and as more data comes in, you will be proven to be as clueless as the rest of the idiots that deny reality based on their ideological beliefs.

Now that's funny right there.


We now have proof that the AGW "scientists" were deliberately manipulating the data to show warming. We have proof that they deliberately manipulated articles in wiki, going so far as to delete opposing articles and ban the authors.

And you continue to believe the lie and call me clueless?

 

[skookerasbil]

The mini ice age starts here
By David Rose
Last updated at 11:17 AM on 10th January 2010
Comments (556) Add to My Stories The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.
Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013.

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.


Read more: DAVID ROSE: The mini ice age starts here | Mail Online







yul........yuk...........the time of the global warming k00ks is ending!!!!!!!:lol:

 

[Oddball]

No, the absorbtion bands of CO2, as established by Tyndal in 1858 equal causation.

So far, I've not see you or any other envirowackaloon put those results into the context of a dynamic ecosystem, or quantify what the change should be in terms of CO2 concentrations changing from .035% to .04%....Probably because those little details wouldn't paint the doomsday scenario you want people to buy into.

2) The global climate is not now nor has ever been static.

That is correct. But there have been periods of far more rapid change that have negatively affected life during those periods.

Several of those periods were during periods of a rapid buildup of GHGs, and the result was a rapid temperature increase, and major and minor extinction events.

Nothing after "That is correct" is relevant to the fact.

3) 50 years of data collection is irrelevant in the millions of years of the existence of the planet.

50 years is more than 1/2 the length of most people lives. And in that period, we have already seen major changes, reflecting the CO2 levels of a few decades ago, such is the inertia in the system.

Irrelevant to the fact that the planetary ecosystem is not static ant that correlation doesn't equal causation. In fact, it has been proven conclusively that CO2 concentrations follow warming periods, rather than precede them...A fact that has yet to permeate your cement head.

4) Nobody has ever offered up what the "ideal" temperature of the Earf should be.

Real idiotic statement. We sure as hell know what the ideal temperatures and conditions are for the agriculture that we all depend on.

Thaks for proving my point.

5) There is no evidence whatsoever you will except that will disprove the hoax, other than that which comes from the hoaxers themselves.

Damn, you are one dumb asshole. No, when I see the retreat of glaciers in the Cascades, the Seirra Nevadas, the Rockies, and the disappearing snowfields in the Blues, I will not accept the stupid contention that nothing is changing.

And when I talk to other people that have been in other mountain ranges in the world, and they state that they are seeing the same thing there, then it is a global phenomonem.

And when all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world state that the warming is happening, am I to say that they are wrong because someone like Dooodeee... says they are?

And never shows any data or evidence to counter their data and evidence.

Ad hominem, appeal to authority and post hoc ergo propter hoc. You're a walking logical fallacy, dickweed.

Also, you've stated for the record that you'll accept no contrary evidence which doesn't come from the hoaxers themselves (an unlikely probability), so posting any would be a total waste of time and effort.

 

[OregonStream]

Isn't "dickweed" a sort of ad-hominem? Unless there are multiple sock puppets on this board, we certainly have a bunch of people who can't discuss in a civil manner.

But how about a link, from a scientific source, saying there is a net gain of ice mass in Antarctica (and one spanning more than a few years, since we're talking about climate trends)? That would be a start (even though there can be regional exceptions unrelated to any global trend). As was pointed out before, Antarctic snowpack and sea ice fluctuation is more related to moisture influx and winds.

 

[OregonStream]

I used "peer reviewed" because to warmers, it serves as Rashi's commentary on the Torah.

Really? I suppose I could be considered something of a "warmer" on this board, but I've never read it.

Also read the quote, that's straight from the book, he blames water vapor, not CO2

Page 100, off of Google Books: "In addition, the increased warmth also increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, which magnifies the process and speeds the process still further."

Or did you have another quote in mind? You must have made the assertion based on something you read. Feel free to post it. I have little confidence in statements about what other people have said (or the supposed malfeasance of certain scientists) if it can't be backed up.

"But as a percentage of the total atmosphere, CO2 represents only about .03 percent of the molecules that make up the air or 355 parts per million. Even so, it has always played a critical role as a greenhouse gas that triggers enough warming to increase the amount of water vapor that evaporates from the oceans into the atmosphere. This extra water vapor, in turn, traps nearly 90% of the infrared rays radiated from the surface of the Earth back toward space..."

You're like a religious fanatic and you need to be deprogrammed to even be able to see the once again highlighted quote

So where does Gore say water vapor is the cause of the trend/actually the trigger? We've been over the reality that WV is a feedback - it's concentrations rise in response to warming already underway from CO2 accumulation. So it's not a cause (AKA a climate forcing), it's an amplifying effect. Not that hard, is it?

 

[Oddball]

Isn't "dickweed" a sort of ad-hominem? Unless there are multiple sock puppets on this board, we certainly have a bunch of people who can't discuss in a civil manner.

Yes, it is.

However, Old Rocksinthehead has already admitted that he'll only accept evidence from the hoaxers as proof that the hoax is a hoax.

Therefore, asking for evidence that I know he won't accept makes him a dickweed.

 

[logical4u]

The mini ice age starts here
By David Rose
Last updated at 11:17 AM on 10th January 2010
Comments (556) Add to My Stories The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.
Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013.

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.


Read more: DAVID ROSE: The mini ice age starts here | Mail Online







yul........yuk...........the time of the global warming k00ks is ending!!!!!!!:lol:

We are going into a period of 'northern hemisphere warming'. It will start in March and last until September at which time the 'trend' will reverse, and the northern hemisphere will cool again. There is a LOT of evidence this will happen, and besides that it says it in the Bible.

 

[Foxfyre]

Climate Feedback: Is east Antarctic ice melting?

Is east Antarctic ice melting?
Daniel Cressey; cross-posted from The Great Beyond

The ice sheet covering east Antarctica may have been melting since 2006, according to new research, contradicting previous suggestions that it has remained stable or even grown in mass.

Using measurements for 2002 to 2009 from a twin pair of satellites, researchers at the University of Texas at Austin in Austin, Texas, say east Antarctica is losing mass at about 58 gigatonnes a year. Most of the loss appears to be from coastal regions and to stem from increased ice loss post 2006.

Previous studies have generally used satellites to measure elevation or movement of ice. The new study - published in Nature Geoscience - instead looks at the Earth’s gravity field and uses that to work out how much ice is there. It also suggests that 132 Gt of the total annual ice loss of 190 Gt per year is coming from the west.

Although there are uncertainties in the data, the new estimates of ice loss are on average consistent with previous calculations, “but, in contrast to previous estimates, they indicate that as a whole, Antarctica may soon be contributing significantly more to global sea-level rise”, the researchers write in their paper

And from the same article:

Jonathan Bamber, of the University of Bristol, told Bloomberg he was also surprised, as those previous studies have suggested the East Antarctic Ice Sheet really wasn’t changing that much. “This result really confirms that there are very substantial inconsistencies between different estimates,” he says. “The margins of error are so large that it can be difficult to draw strong conclusions.”

Of course AGW proponents are going to look for studies--almost all of which will come from computer models--that support AGW. I think the skeptics are not looking so much for evidence that the climate is not warming or changing, but looking at the verifiable data available along with the many 'mistakes' and 'errors' contributed by those same computer models.

An open mind is what we need for this rather than just meekly handing over our freedoms, choices, options, opportunities to an inexact and increasingly likely flawed theory generated by people who will benefit from it if they can sell it to us.

 

[Big Fitz]

The discussion has finally hit a point of equalibrium.


So I cite Boncher's Theory on Faith.

To a believer, no proof is necessary. To a skeptic, no proof is enough.

 

[Foxfyre]

We are going into a period of 'northern hemisphere warming'. It will start in March and last until September at which time the 'trend' will reverse, and the northern hemisphere will cool again. There is a LOT of evidence this will happen, and besides that it says it in the Bible.

I'm pretty sure that it has also been on Oprah.

Seriously though, as Big Fitz posted:

The discussion has finally hit a point of equalibrium.

So I cite Boncher's Theory on Faith.

To a believer, no proof is necessary. To a skeptic, no proof is enough.

On one hand I agree with that. There is one side that is absolutely convinced that we are doomed, doomed, DOOMED if we do not buy into the pro anthropogenic global warming agenda.

And there is another camp that is just as entrenched in a conclusion that it is all malarkey and no significant climate change is in the cards.

But there are the rest of us who are the true skeptics who don't want hype, don't want theories, don't want speculation, don't want political opportunism, but who want the truth of the matter and continue to explore all points of view in hopes of arriving at the best truth available to us.

I think it would be foolish with the plethora of opinion that human generated CO2 is warming the planet to not continue to look at that, though I think the preponderance of the evidence so far pretty well rules that out. It would be even more foolish to dismiss the informed opinion of those who forecast global warming or global cooling, as it would be good to be prepared for that if it is going to occur.

I don't know how the AGW religionists can just turn up their noses and casually dismiss information like this though:

Here are the numbers behind the startling findings of the new research paper. The number of actual weather observation points used as a starting point for world average temperatures has been reduced from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,500 in the most recent years. Still, more stations are dropped out in related programs and in the final NASA/GIStemp data file, it drops to about 1,000. That leaves much of the world unaccounted for,” says Joseph D'Aleo of ICECAP.us and SPPI.org, who has released a research study of the global temperature pattern today. "Think of it this way,” he continues, "if Minneapolis and other northern cities suddenly disappeared but Kansas City and St. Louis were still available, would you think an average of Kansas City and St. Louis would provide an accurate replacement for Minneapolis and expect to use that to determine how Minneapolis’ temperature has changed with any hope of accuracy?"

E. Michael Smith pointed out that the November 2009 "anomaly map" from GISS shows a very hot Bolivia, which is covered by high mountains. "One small problem: there have been no temperatures recorded in the NCDC data set for Bolivia since 1990. NASA/GISS have to fill in or make up the numbers from up to 1200km away. This is on the beach in Peru or in the Amazon jungle," he said.
Daily Blog, 1/14/10: Coleman's Comments | KUSI - News, Weather and Sports - San Diego, CA | Coleman's Corner

 

[Old Rocks]

Fucking dumb. We don't have satellites taking temps anymore?

 

[Old Rocks]

Most of what I have posted on this board is from actual studies and observations done in real time, right now.

We are seeing the melting of the ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica. The loss is being measured in giga-tons per year, and increasing faster than anybody predicted.

The reduction of the amount of sea covered in the summer by the North Polar Sea Ice has allowed that area to absorb a huge amount of heat that would have otherwise been reflected into space.

As a result of that warming, and the interaction of the warming atmosphere with the sea, we are seeing a warming ocean, with some clathrates already beginning to outgas to the extent that we can measure the isotopal differance in the atmospheric CH4.

Alpine glaciers are rapidly receding on all the continents. Enough that downstream agriculture is already being affected.

There are changes happening right now that are measureable, and are being measured. And being denied by those whose profits would be affected, and those whose political ideologies deny science.

The history of the study of GHGs has been posted on this board many times. Those that deny the efficy of GHGs in warming the atmosphere are either willfully ignorant or liars.

 

[saveliberty]

The global warming goofs are at it again I see. You guys can start a thread everyday and it won't change a thing. The ice caps are having a net gain right now. People are generally freezing from coast to coast. No, a short term cooling trend doesn't prove cooling. It does however suggest a careful look at whether this is really a warming trend or not. It also suggests that CO2 emmisions may not be as strong a consideration as some have thought. One thing is for sure, the cold snap os not helping the warmers cause.

You would think some of them would stop and consider their beliefs. Sadly no, they just go on pointing to their forged data and peer reviewed junk papers.

 

[Chris]

The global warming goofs are at it again I see. You guys can start a thread everyday and it won't change a thing. The ice caps are having a net gain right now. People are generally freezing from coast to coast. No, a short term cooling trend doesn't prove cooling. It does however suggest a careful look at whether this is really a warming trend or not. It also suggests that CO2 emmisions may not be as strong a consideration as some have thought. One thing is for sure, the cold snap os not helping the warmers cause.

You would think some of them would stop and consider their beliefs. Sadly no, they just go on pointing to their forged data and peer reviewed junk papers.

Nothing like making bs statements with no link to back it up.

It was 70 here today by the way....