Global Warming: The Meltdown

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Sinatra, Feb 20, 2010.

  1. Sinatra
    Offline

    Sinatra Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Messages:
    8,013
    Thanks Received:
    1,005
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,005
    Very interesting report on the Global Warming swindle - and portrays the self-interest motivations behind the "science" upon which the increasingly unstable legs of global warming stand upon.

    Check it out - divided into 7 parts.



    YouTube - otherside333's Channel


    ___


    Sample Clip - note the NOAA rep. who admits to their use of adjusting data due to the "cold bias" of their temperature stations, while many others state these same stations have a warm bias. Fascinating!


    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WgsTSi4caM]YouTube - Global Warming The Meltdown Part 3 of 7[/ame]
     
  2. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,465
    Thanks Received:
    5,410
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,305
    More bullshit from the bullshit artists.

    Give it up. The accusations against the scientists are backfiring, and the lies by people like yourself are getting more extreme.

    Even the scientists that have doubts, such as Dr. Roy Spencer, have stated that the earth is rapidly warming.

    But continue to make this warming a political issue, denying the cause, or that it is even happening. This kind of thing comes back and bites idiots that use it in the ass.
     
  3. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    That the Earf has warmed slightly, and is trending back down, is not in dispute......That the fault lies with the modern industrial activities of mankind is.

    A hypothesis that is coming apart faster than a Chevy Vega.
     
  4. Sinatra
    Offline

    Sinatra Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Messages:
    8,013
    Thanks Received:
    1,005
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,005
    ___

    :lol::lol:

    Once again you cite Spence w/o knowing what he is saying Old Rocks. Spence is concerned over the limited numbers of reporting stations utilized in more recent times, as well as the likelihood of heat islands impacting the overall data.

    And while he agrees the earth has experienced recent -and rather marginal, warming, he is not willing to concede humans are the primary drivers of said increase.

    Roy Spencer's voice on this issue is quickly overtaking the old hard line warmers - and that is a good thing, as the entire issue of "global warming" will be undertaken with far more science, and far less politics, with the likes of Spence coordinating the ongoing study.
     
  5. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,465
    Thanks Received:
    5,410
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,305
    LOL. No, the numbers from the satellites, which are the ones that Dr. Spencer is using, force him to concede the warming. And the physics of the GHGs have long been established.

    And Dr. Hansen, not Dr. Spencer, is considered to be the world's leading expert on global warming.

    In almost every category, the numbers that the IPCC predicted for sea level rise, Arctic Ice melt, polar cap melt, and glacial melt, are being exceeded.

    The Copenhagen Diagnosis
     
  6. Sinatra
    Offline

    Sinatra Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Messages:
    8,013
    Thanks Received:
    1,005
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,005
    ____

    You actually supply a link called the "Copenhagen Diagnosis"??

    :lol::lol:

    Old Rocks, you make this too easy.

    A failed global warming summit born of a failed flat earth warmer religion.

    Carry on - you are proving the fallacy of man-made global warming with each post you present...
     
  7. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,465
    Thanks Received:
    5,410
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,305
    Of course mindless derision without even bothering to look at the link is the Conservatives response to everything.

    http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhagen/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_LOW.pdf

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
    The most significant recent climate change findings are:

    Surging greenhouse gas emissions: Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were 40% higher than thosein 1990. Even if global emission rates are stabilized at present-day levels, just 20 more years of emissions would give a25% probability that warming exceeds 2°C, even with zero emissions after 2030. Every year of delayed action increases thechances of exceeding 2°C warming.

    Recent global temperatures demonstrate human-induced warming: Over the past 25 years temperatures have increased at arate of 0.19°C per decade, in very good agreement with predictions based on greenhouse gas increases. Even over the pastten years, despite a decrease in solar forcing, the trend continues to be one of warming. Natural, short-term fluctuations areoccurring as usual, but there have been no significant changes in the underlying warming trend.

    Acceleration of melting of ice-sheets, glaciers and ice-caps: A wide array of satellite and ice measurements now demonstratebeyond doubt that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass at an increasing rate. Melting of glaciers andice-caps in other parts of the world has also accelerated since 1990.
    Rapid Arctic sea-ice decline: Summer-time melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of climatemodels. The area of summertime sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40% less than the average prediction from IPCCAR4 climate models.

    Current sea-level rise underestimated: Satellites show recent global average sea-level rise (3.4 mm/yr over the past 15 years)to be ~80% above past IPCC predictions. This acceleration in sea-level rise is consistent with a doubling in contribution frommelting of glaciers, ice caps, and the Greenland and West-Antarctic ice-sheets.

    Sea-level predictions revised: By 2100, global sea-level is likely to rise at least twice as much as projected by Working Group1 of the IPCC AR4; for unmitigated emissions it may well exceed 1 meter. The upper limit has been estimated as ~ 2 meterssea level rise by 2100. Sea level will continue to rise for centuries after global temperatures have been stabilized, and severalmeters of sea level rise must be expected over the next few centuries.

    Delay in action risks irreversible damage: Several vulnerable elements in the climate system (e.g. continental ice-sheets,Amazon rainforest, West African monsoon and others) could be pushed towards abrupt or irreversible change if warmingcontinues in a business-as-usual way throughout this century. The risk of transgressing critical thresholds (“tipping points”)increases strongly with ongoing climate change. Thus waiting for higher levels of scientific certainty could mean that some
    tipping points will be crossed before they are recognized.

    The turning point must come soon: If global warming is to be limited to a maximum of 2 °C above pre-industrial values, globalemissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly. To stabilize climate, a decarbonized global society –with near-zero emissions of CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases – needs to be reached well within this century. Morespecifically, the average annual per-capita emissions will have to shrink to well under 1 metric ton CO2 by 2050. This is 80-95%
    below the per-capita emissions in developed nations in 2000.

    The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science.
    I. Allison, N.L. Bindoff, R.A. Bindschadler, P.M. Cox, N. de Noblet, M.H. England, J.E. Francis, N.
    Gruber, A.M. Haywood, D.J. Karoly, G. Kaser, C. Le Quéré, T.M. Lenton, M.E. Mann, B.I. McNeil,
    A.J. Pitman, S. Rahmstorf, E. Rignot, H.J. Schellnhuber, S.H. Schneider, S.C. Sherwood, R.C.J.
    Somerville, K. Steffen, E.J. Steig, M. Visbeck, A.J. Weaver. The University of New South Wales
    Climate Change Research Centre (CCRC), Sydney, Australia, 60pp.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2010
  8. code1211
    Offline

    code1211 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,999
    Thanks Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +845

    The prediction on sea level rise was recently withdrawn, but it hardly needed to be withdrawn. It was laughably and ridiculously innaccuarate. The predicted rise was between 7 and 82 cm and this, they now say, could not be supported by their data.

    The upper end limit was 1171% of the low end. As a prediction, this would almost certainly have the end result within its range. Using a range like that, I could, with similar accurracy predict the high temperature for any day in any year in the future and do so with no fear of being wrong.

    For instance, I predict that the high temperature on August 4, 2010 in Indianapolis, Indiana will be between 32 and 357 degrees. This is pretty easy. Can I have my grant money now?

    Who are these idiots?
     
  9. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,155
    Thanks Received:
    2,911
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,181

    Rocks s0n...........perhaps you havent noticed, but this whole forum is dying over the last couple of months!!!

    Why?

    Because most people previosuly duped by this hoax have abandoned ship..........only the handful of hard core k00ks remain. All "Environmental" forums on the internet have done a 180.........now dominated by mainstream thinking/common sense Americans on this issue. Only the k00ks think that this has anything at all to do with science!!! Its a scam.............always has been scam ( pretty brilliant one, I will admit).

    This "carbon credit" crap was a game changer. People dont want to destroy the economy for a fcukking guess.............dummy.

    Its quite that simple..............

    An appropriate analogy?

    Thank about somebody who would dump 1 milion dollars on a single lotto ticket son???



    Rocks.........time to move on from this OCD thing and look for another issue to obsess upon because the owrm has turned and this one is a loser. Lifes too short s0n...............
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2010
  10. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,465
    Thanks Received:
    5,410
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,305
    These 'idiots' also did a probability cone for the rate of melt on the North Polar Cap. And the observed rate of melt is completely off of their chart.

    Their failure is one of being too conservative in their estimate of the rate of change. But that fact goes right over your head.
     

Share This Page