Global warming? No. Howabout Global ice age within the next 70 years

[DavidS]

We can figure human involvement will add variables to the climate equation, all those against taking action on pollution, etc. must assume our activities will make Earth better, not worse since it won't stay the same).

Such optimism.

No. Human involvement has added NO variables to our climate. Our weather is no different today than it would be had we invented no fossil fuels or anything that emits CO2 whatsoever. Global Warming is the biggest hoax since snake oil.

But you know better than every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world.

Biggest load of bullshit I've ever seen.

Oh and the scientists and universities that DO support global warming get MEGA research grants for this research. Remember the scientists who stood with Tobacco companies and had actual "proof" that smoking 3 packs a day for 30 years wouldn't cause lung cancer? How do you think they came up with that stuff? THEY WERE PAID MILLIONS OF DOLLARS!!

Oh and now you're going to tell me our government supports the theory of global warming and they're not getting paid yet. Keyword "yet." Watch out - there will be a carbon tax coming to your store soon. Just like tobacco tax... if you emit CO2 and don't drive a "green" car, you'll be taxed. If you buy hairspray or use air conditioning, you'll be taxed. Within the next 20 years, there will be more "green taxes" than there are regular taxes. The governments of the world have found a new way to generate income - by making the biggest idiots believe that that we're actually harming our environment by emitting CO2. And now they have companies selling it, and marketing it to make it acceptable to mass consumers.

The bottom line is: Being green makes you a lot of green.

 

[DavidS]

We can figure human involvement will add variables to the climate equation, all those against taking action on pollution, etc. must assume our activities will make Earth better, not worse since it won't stay the same).

Such optimism.

No. Human involvement has added NO variables to our climate. Our weather is no different today than it would be had we invented no fossil fuels or anything that emits CO2 whatsoever. Global Warming is the biggest hoax since snake oil.

If you repeat I lie like the one you just said, you can convince yourself it's the truth. Problem is, what if your wrong?

I'm not. I haven't been paid a dime of money by anyone, I don't work for oil companies and I have already debunked global warming in previous threads.

 

[code1211]

[Let me get this straight, this last decade was the warmest in the history of direct instrument measurement WITHOUT the help of the sun????

That's not what I read. The article was talking about what the Sun is doing right now and in the very recent past. The Sun had plateaued at a level of comparitively high radiation for the last half of the 20th century. In truth, it said that the Sun is as "Cool", can the Sun be Cool?, as it has been for 100 years.

This would go a long way toward explaining the warming during that time.

Pointing to CO2, which has historically been a result of warming, instead of the intensity of the Sun, which has historically been a a predicter of both cooling and warming, seems a little agenda-driven. It also defies the lessons of history. One might want to call this data.

Then again, one might want to change the system of taxation.

 

[code1211]

We can figure human involvement will add variables to the climate equation, all those against taking action on pollution, etc. must assume our activities will make Earth better, not worse since it won't stay the same).

Such optimism.

No. Human involvement has added NO variables to our climate. Our weather is no different today than it would be had we invented no fossil fuels or anything that emits CO2 whatsoever. Global Warming is the biggest hoax since snake oil.

But you know better than every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world.

We have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere by nearly 40%, increased the CH4 by 250%, and added many gases that are not natural, that are also potent greenhouse gases. We have had a major impact already on the climate, one that is going to increase over the coming years.

You are presenting a conclusion as an argument. Repeating the rallying cry is not an argument. The addition of Anthropogenic Green House Gases has been pretty consitant and the increase in temperature is marked by nothing if not inconsistancy. Presenting a consistant cause as the agent of an inconsistant result does not make sense.

If there was a correlation of the tow, that would be more helpful to your case. As it is, the warming started before the introduction of AGHG's, the warming has advanced and receeded in spite of the consistant increase of CO2 and the temperature reacts more immediately and dramatically to almost any other forcing agent than it does to CO2.

The only consistant rection of temperature to CO2 is that it seems to ignor it.

 

[edthecynic]

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | 'Quiet Sun' baffling astronomers

he Sun is the dimmest it has been for nearly a century.

There are no sunspots, very few solar flares - and our nearest star is the quietest it has been for a very long time.
The observations are baffling astronomers, who are due to study new pictures of the Sun, taken from space, at the UK National Astronomy Meeting.



The Sun normally undergoes an 11-year cycle of activity. At its peak, it has a tumultuous boiling atmosphere that spits out flares and planet-sized chunks of super-hot gas. This is followed by a calmer period.


Last year, it was expected that it would have been hotting up after a quiet spell. But instead it hit a 50-year low in solar wind pressure, a 55-year low in radio emissions, and a 100-year low in sunspot activity.
According to Prof Louise Hara of University College London, it is unclear why this is happening or when the Sun is likely to become more active again.



"There's no sign of us coming out of it yet," she told BBC News.
"At the moment, there are scientific papers coming out suggesting that we'll be going into a normal period of activity soon.
"Others are suggesting we'll be going into another minimum period - this is a big scientific debate at the moment."

Sunspots could be seen by the Soho telescope in 2001 (l), but not this year (r)


In the mid-17th Century, a quiet spell - known as the Maunder Minimum - lasted 70 years, and led to a "mini ice age".

[Let me get this straight, this last decade was the warmest in the history of direct instrument measurement WITHOUT the help of the sun????

That's not what I read. The article was talking about what the Sun is doing right now and in the very recent past. The Sun had plateaued at a level of comparitively high radiation for the last half of the 20th century. In truth, it said that the Sun is as "Cool", can the Sun be Cool?, as it has been for 100 years.

This would go a long way toward explaining the warming during that time.

If it said that you wouldn't have edited it out, you would have highlighted "what you read."

You now want us to believe that the last decade was the warmest measured directly by instruments the last 150 years because the sun was peaking. If that was so, then why were they expecting the sun's activity to "hot up" last year from a "calmer period" if it was peaking this last decade?????

 

[seaninomaha]

The sad thing about this argument is it so polarized politically that any truth may get lost in the Rhetoric from both sides. People talk about air temperature as a direct cause/effect of global warming/cooling. People always speak of the polar caps and their "status as direct evidence for or against. People talk about the sun and its role in climate change. Very little is said of the whole picture based on all of these principal players in earth climate.

If there is a paper on the ocean warming, you will find a counter point paper on how the ocean is cooling. Same with the ice caps and the Sun. The sad part is very few people look at the real consequences of a warming or cooling earth. The other fact that is not talked about much is that the current climate we have will not stay the same for much longer. Our climate is overdue for a move back into a glacial period. As far as ice core evidence shows interglacials are short lived.

Now lets throw the one factor in that some say has direct cause for changing the climate, and some say have no effect on the climate. HUMANS. With over 6 billion of us on the planet I would be hard pressed to say we have no effect on the climate of this planet. How much I wont even try to guess at. We though will be caught up in the change whatever it may be. If the climate warms the Majority of humans will be without clean fresh water to drink within 100 years. If it cools we will be without enough food to eat because the growing seasons will be shortened, and if there is a big enough cooling that moves into the grain belt then food will be scarce.

If you want any evidence of what the future may hold, look at the equatorial mountain glaciers as evidence. Thermodynamics state that heat will move from a warmer body to a colder body. The equatorial region of earth is the hottest part of the planet. If the earth heats up the water will dry up with the movement of heat towards the cold poles. If the earth continues to lose mountain glacier surface, then less sunlight will be reflected and as a NATURAL effect the earth will warm.

I believe it is imperative that both sides of this political argument come together and work towards answers that won't go through the political luandry creating more problems than GOOD solutions. Once humanity grows up and stops worrying about the bottom line and realizes we are all in this together then maybe we can lessen the impact it will have on all of us. -Sean

 

[Sinatra]

The sad thing about this argument is it so polarized politically that any truth may get lost in the Rhetoric from both sides. People talk about air temperature as a direct cause/effect of global warming/cooling. People always speak of the polar caps and their "status as direct evidence for or against. People talk about the sun and its role in climate change. Very little is said of the whole picture based on all of these principal players in earth climate.

If there is a paper on the ocean warming, you will find a counter point paper on how the ocean is cooling. Same with the ice caps and the Sun. The sad part is very few people look at the real consequences of a warming or cooling earth. The other fact that is not talked about much is that the current climate we have will not stay the same for much longer. Our climate is overdue for a move back into a glacial period. As far as ice core evidence shows interglacials are short lived.

Now lets throw the one factor in that some say has direct cause for changing the climate, and some say have no effect on the climate. HUMANS. With over 6 billion of us on the planet I would be hard pressed to say we have no effect on the climate of this planet. How much I wont even try to guess at. We though will be caught up in the change whatever it may be. If the climate warms the Majority of humans will be without clean fresh water to drink within 100 years. If it cools we will be without enough food to eat because the growing seasons will be shortened, and if there is a big enough cooling that moves into the grain belt then food will be scarce.

If you want any evidence of what the future may hold, look at the equatorial mountain glaciers as evidence. Thermodynamics state that heat will move from a warmer body to a colder body. The equatorial region of earth is the hottest part of the planet. If the earth heats up the water will dry up with the movement of heat towards the cold poles. If the earth continues to lose mountain glacier surface, then less sunlight will be reflected and as a NATURAL effect the earth will warm.

I believe it is imperative that both sides of this political argument come together and work towards answers that won't go through the political luandry creating more problems than GOOD solutions. Once humanity grows up and stops worrying about the bottom line and realizes we are all in this together then maybe we can lessen the impact it will have on all of us. -Sean

Humans have far more impact on the environment than the climate.

Whether the earth warms or cools...not much we can do about that.

Quality of water, forest land etc., yes, we can certainly help to maintain a high standard for such things - and we have. Other parts of the world not so much...

 

[DavidS]

They will still call it 'climate change' - that's why they moved away from the 'global warming' catch-phrase. Clever, aren't they?

Climate change is what global warming leads to. To complicated for your intellect? Climate change leads to this kind of thing;

DROUGHT 2009

Again, incorrect. Droughts are normal cycles in the climate. You cannot blame every single weather event that appears to be a little weird on global warming, Old Rocks.

Oh no! There's a strong hurricane! Gotta be global warming!!

 

[k2skier]

No. Human involvement has added NO variables to our climate. Our weather is no different today than it would be had we invented no fossil fuels or anything that emits CO2 whatsoever. Global Warming is the biggest hoax since snake oil.

If you repeat I lie like the one you just said, you can convince yourself it's the truth. Problem is, what if your wrong?

I'm not. I haven't been paid a dime of money by anyone, I don't work for oil companies and I have already debunked global warming in previous threads.

No, you assume you're not wrong. And no you haven't debunked anything, you have only stated your opinion.

 

[k2skier]

The sad thing about this argument is it so polarized politically that any truth may get lost in the Rhetoric from both sides. People talk about air temperature as a direct cause/effect of global warming/cooling. People always speak of the polar caps and their "status as direct evidence for or against. People talk about the sun and its role in climate change. Very little is said of the whole picture based on all of these principal players in earth climate.

If there is a paper on the ocean warming, you will find a counter point paper on how the ocean is cooling. Same with the ice caps and the Sun. The sad part is very few people look at the real consequences of a warming or cooling earth. The other fact that is not talked about much is that the current climate we have will not stay the same for much longer. Our climate is overdue for a move back into a glacial period. As far as ice core evidence shows interglacials are short lived.

Now lets throw the one factor in that some say has direct cause for changing the climate, and some say have no effect on the climate. HUMANS. With over 6 billion of us on the planet I would be hard pressed to say we have no effect on the climate of this planet. How much I wont even try to guess at. We though will be caught up in the change whatever it may be. If the climate warms the Majority of humans will be without clean fresh water to drink within 100 years. If it cools we will be without enough food to eat because the growing seasons will be shortened, and if there is a big enough cooling that moves into the grain belt then food will be scarce.

If you want any evidence of what the future may hold, look at the equatorial mountain glaciers as evidence. Thermodynamics state that heat will move from a warmer body to a colder body. The equatorial region of earth is the hottest part of the planet. If the earth heats up the water will dry up with the movement of heat towards the cold poles. If the earth continues to lose mountain glacier surface, then less sunlight will be reflected and as a NATURAL effect the earth will warm.

I believe it is imperative that both sides of this political argument come together and work towards answers that won't go through the political luandry creating more problems than GOOD solutions. Once humanity grows up and stops worrying about the bottom line and realizes we are all in this together then maybe we can lessen the impact it will have on all of us. -Sean

As I have stated before, common sense, sustainability and crossing party lines is the only way to get to the best solution. All the Neocons say follow the money, just look at who's putting big dollars into debunking AGW....

 

[k2skier]

No. Human involvement has added NO variables to our climate. Our weather is no different today than it would be had we invented no fossil fuels or anything that emits CO2 whatsoever. Global Warming is the biggest hoax since snake oil.

If you repeat I lie like the one you just said, you can convince yourself it's the truth. Problem is, what if your wrong?

But what if you are wrong? Same consequences ... just different method for getting there. The only difference, at least we will be looking for the roots of the problems and not just want to change the symptoms.

If I'm wrong, then the climate goes back to what it was earlier in the century. If you and other deniers are wrong, well the consequences are going to be much more harmful, so I hope your right, problem is not much evidence is pointing toward you being right.

 

[k2skier]

It's nice to read some intelligent debating on AGW...instead of this name calling BS here.

Dire Predictions global warming text - Page 2 - Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum

 

[code1211]

...for powder skiing in June, bring it on!

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

It looks like the Arctic Sea ice Extent is almost back to the averages established over the last several years.

 

[KittenKoder]

The sad thing about this argument is it so polarized politically that any truth may get lost in the Rhetoric from both sides. People talk about air temperature as a direct cause/effect of global warming/cooling. People always speak of the polar caps and their "status as direct evidence for or against. People talk about the sun and its role in climate change. Very little is said of the whole picture based on all of these principal players in earth climate.

If there is a paper on the ocean warming, you will find a counter point paper on how the ocean is cooling. Same with the ice caps and the Sun. The sad part is very few people look at the real consequences of a warming or cooling earth. The other fact that is not talked about much is that the current climate we have will not stay the same for much longer. Our climate is overdue for a move back into a glacial period. As far as ice core evidence shows interglacials are short lived.

Now lets throw the one factor in that some say has direct cause for changing the climate, and some say have no effect on the climate. HUMANS. With over 6 billion of us on the planet I would be hard pressed to say we have no effect on the climate of this planet. How much I wont even try to guess at. We though will be caught up in the change whatever it may be. If the climate warms the Majority of humans will be without clean fresh water to drink within 100 years. If it cools we will be without enough food to eat because the growing seasons will be shortened, and if there is a big enough cooling that moves into the grain belt then food will be scarce.

If you want any evidence of what the future may hold, look at the equatorial mountain glaciers as evidence. Thermodynamics state that heat will move from a warmer body to a colder body. The equatorial region of earth is the hottest part of the planet. If the earth heats up the water will dry up with the movement of heat towards the cold poles. If the earth continues to lose mountain glacier surface, then less sunlight will be reflected and as a NATURAL effect the earth will warm.

I believe it is imperative that both sides of this political argument come together and work towards answers that won't go through the political luandry creating more problems than GOOD solutions. Once humanity grows up and stops worrying about the bottom line and realizes we are all in this together then maybe we can lessen the impact it will have on all of us. -Sean

As I have stated before, common sense, sustainability and crossing party lines is the only way to get to the best solution. All the Neocons say follow the money, just look at who's putting big dollars into debunking AGW....

Yet you are ignoring who is putting big money into the scientists listened to by environuts.

 

[k2skier]

...for powder skiing in June, bring it on!

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

It looks like the Arctic Sea ice Extent is almost back to the averages established over the last several years.

Sarcasm? Or are you not reading?


April 6, 2009
Arctic sea ice younger, thinner as melt season begins

March 2009 compared to past Marches

Including March 2009, the past six years have all had ice extent substantially lower than normal. The linear trend indicates that for the month of March, ice extent is declining by 2.7% per decade, an average of 43,000 square kilometers (16,000 square miles) of ice per year


Ice extent through the winter was similar to that of recent years, but lower than the 1979 to 2000 average. More importantly, the melt season has begun with a substantial amount of thin first-year ice, which is vulnerable to summer melt.

 

[FactFinder]

...for powder skiing in June, bring it on!

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

It looks like the Arctic Sea ice Extent is almost back to the averages established over the last several years.

Sarcasm? Or are you not reading?


April 6, 2009
Arctic sea ice younger, thinner as melt season begins

March 2009 compared to past Marches

Including March 2009, the past six years have all had ice extent substantially lower than normal. The linear trend indicates that for the month of March, ice extent is declining by 2.7% per decade, an average of 43,000 square kilometers (16,000 square miles) of ice per year


Ice extent through the winter was similar to that of recent years, but lower than the 1979 to 2000 average. More importantly, the melt season has begun with a substantial amount of thin first-year ice, which is vulnerable to summer melt.

Of course it is younger and thinner. That younger and thinner part is the beginning of the recovery from record breaking solar maximums. Also they have discovered active volcanoes under the Artic and the melting years were highly effected by wind shifts.

Yes there is younger and thinner but there is more than last year and the base starting point is greater going into the melt season. As the planet continues its cooling off period due to the present extended solar minimum ( no sunspots) you can bet that the ice will recover more.

 

[k2skier]

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

It looks like the Arctic Sea ice Extent is almost back to the averages established over the last several years.

Sarcasm? Or are you not reading?


April 6, 2009
Arctic sea ice younger, thinner as melt season begins

March 2009 compared to past Marches

Including March 2009, the past six years have all had ice extent substantially lower than normal. The linear trend indicates that for the month of March, ice extent is declining by 2.7% per decade, an average of 43,000 square kilometers (16,000 square miles) of ice per year


Ice extent through the winter was similar to that of recent years, but lower than the 1979 to 2000 average. More importantly, the melt season has begun with a substantial amount of thin first-year ice, which is vulnerable to summer melt.

Of course it is younger and thinner. That younger and thinner part is the beginning of the recovery from record breaking solar maximums. Also they have discovered active volcanoes under the Artic and the melting years were highly effected by wind shifts.

Yes there is younger and thinner but there is more than last year and the base starting point is greater going into the melt season. As the planet continues its cooling off period due to the present extended solar minimum ( no sunspots) you can bet that the ice will recover more.

Did you miss this line?

Including March 2009, the past six years have all had ice extent substantially lower than normal.

 

[code1211]

Sarcasm? Or are you not reading?


April 6, 2009
Arctic sea ice younger, thinner as melt season begins

March 2009 compared to past Marches

Including March 2009, the past six years have all had ice extent substantially lower than normal. The linear trend indicates that for the month of March, ice extent is declining by 2.7% per decade, an average of 43,000 square kilometers (16,000 square miles) of ice per year


Ice extent through the winter was similar to that of recent years, but lower than the 1979 to 2000 average. More importantly, the melt season has begun with a substantial amount of thin first-year ice, which is vulnerable to summer melt.

Of course it is younger and thinner. That younger and thinner part is the beginning of the recovery from record breaking solar maximums. Also they have discovered active volcanoes under the Artic and the melting years were highly effected by wind shifts.

Yes there is younger and thinner but there is more than last year and the base starting point is greater going into the melt season. As the planet continues its cooling off period due to the present extended solar minimum ( no sunspots) you can bet that the ice will recover more.

Did you miss this line?

Including March 2009, the past six years have all had ice extent substantially lower than normal.

They, and apparently you stop your analysis in March. In April, the current level of ice is very close to the avearges from the 70's forward.

By any analysis, what was smaller last year and is larger this year is growing. The Arctic Sea ice extent is growing. It is returning to the levels of the averages of the last 30 years.

If runaway global warming is a bad thing and if temperatures have leveled and declined over the last several years, this should be cause for celebration. Those who watch this stuff be dancing in the streets. Unless they fear slipping on the ice.

 

[code1211]

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | 'Quiet Sun' baffling astronomers

he Sun is the dimmest it has been for nearly a century.

There are no sunspots, very few solar flares - and our nearest star is the quietest it has been for a very long time.
The observations are baffling astronomers, who are due to study new pictures of the Sun, taken from space, at the UK National Astronomy Meeting.



The Sun normally undergoes an 11-year cycle of activity. At its peak, it has a tumultuous boiling atmosphere that spits out flares and planet-sized chunks of super-hot gas. This is followed by a calmer period.


Last year, it was expected that it would have been hotting up after a quiet spell. But instead it hit a 50-year low in solar wind pressure, a 55-year low in radio emissions, and a 100-year low in sunspot activity.
According to Prof Louise Hara of University College London, it is unclear why this is happening or when the Sun is likely to become more active again.



"There's no sign of us coming out of it yet," she told BBC News.
"At the moment, there are scientific papers coming out suggesting that we'll be going into a normal period of activity soon.
"Others are suggesting we'll be going into another minimum period - this is a big scientific debate at the moment."

Sunspots could be seen by the Soho telescope in 2001 (l), but not this year (r)


In the mid-17th Century, a quiet spell - known as the Maunder Minimum - lasted 70 years, and led to a "mini ice age".

[Let me get this straight, this last decade was the warmest in the history of direct instrument measurement WITHOUT the help of the sun????

That's not what I read. The article was talking about what the Sun is doing right now and in the very recent past. The Sun had plateaued at a level of comparitively high radiation for the last half of the 20th century. In truth, it said that the Sun is as "Cool", can the Sun be Cool?, as it has been for 100 years.

This would go a long way toward explaining the warming during that time.

If it said that you wouldn't have edited it out, you would have highlighted "what you read."

You now want us to believe that the last decade was the warmest measured directly by instruments the last 150 years because the sun was peaking. If that was so, then why were they expecting the sun's activity to "hot up" last year from a "calmer period" if it was peaking this last decade?????

As always I cannot follow your logic. The article says that recently the Solar Radiation has decreased. That's what I said the article said. You say that it did not say what it said. Can you clarify this for me please?

I did not say that that last ten years showed peaking solar radiation. Who are you responding to? If you feel the need to win an argument against points that I do not make, why are you responding to me?

Why not just start a thread and pose an argument that you wish to respond to.

 

[code1211]

Now lets throw the one factor in that some say has direct cause for changing the climate, and some say have no effect on the climate. HUMANS. With over 6 billion of us on the planet I would be hard pressed to say we have no effect on the climate of this planet. How much I wont even try to guess at. We though will be caught up in the change whatever it may be. If the climate warms the Majority of humans will be without clean fresh water to drink within 100 years. If it cools we will be without enough food to eat because the growing seasons will be shortened, and if there is a big enough cooling that moves into the grain belt then food will be scarce.

For about 10,000 years we've had a remarkably stable climate. The increase and decrease of the globla temperature has occurred within about a 2 degree range. We are just about exactly in the middle of that range today. In the last 2000, the temperature has increased by about 0.7 degrees. During the 5000 years prior to that, the temperature decreased by about, wait for it, by about 0.7 degrees. During the preceeding 3000 years, the temperature decreased by about a degree. Give or take.

The point is that the tempearature has vascillated over time. It is still vascillating. My guess is that it will continue to vascillate. Measuring geologic change on the time scales of man is a little silly, yet that is what we are trying to do with this.

Probably as a result of the collision of North and South America at Panama, ocean currents changed and this allowed the Milankovitch Cycles to trigger Ice Ages over the last Million or so years. No CO2 forcing and no humans to start them or end them. Just astronomy, geology and hydro and thermal dynamics.

Men having a notable impact on these things is not likely. If the race died out over night this weekend, in 200 years, very little of what we have done would be apparent. We are not all that. Climb out of swimming pool and look at the hole you leave in the water.