Here's a climate prediction from 2007.

[code1211]

T, you are a dumb asshole. You make statements without the slightest evidence to back them up. You know only wingnut talking points, not a single thing about science.

The scientists made a definate prediction. You and the rest of the fools here were yapping about the cooling. Now it is warming. Perhaps you would be able to learn from that? No, not possible. Reality is foriegn to you.

As Caligirl pointed out, the scientists made the prediction when all of you were stating that we were in a cooling period, in spite of the fact it was the warmest decade yet on record. Now we will see 2010 to 2019 as another warmest on record decade.

Do you dare predict differantly? Or are you going to go into a spell of saying it has nothing to do with the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere? Are you so fucking stupid that you don't know that the absorbtion spectra for CO2 was done by Tyndal in 1858? Yes, I do believe you are that fucking stupid.

Substituting an false patriotism for independent thought. You are everything that is wrong with our nation. You will condemn our nation to third world status with your stupidity.[/QUOTE]


No need for him to take that action. The Big 0 is all over it.

 

[code1211]

So, this stable temperature phase that we're sort of in right now was predicted in 2007 in the journal Science. It also predicted rapid warming after 2009, concurrent with el nino, ... which has now officially formed in the pacific.

Global warming will step up after 2009: scientists

Thu Aug 9, 2007 2:13pm EDT

In research published in the journal Science, Smith and his colleagues predicted that the next three or four years would show little warming despite an overall forecast that saw warming over the decade.

<snip>

The real heat will start after 2009, they said.

Until then, the natural forces will offset the expected warming caused by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, which releases the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.

Global warming will step up after 2009: scientists | Reuters

Should be interesting to see what effects this has on 2010 and 2012 political races, if weather heats up and some politicians claim we shouldn't do anything about it.

Unless the economy heats up, any impact on elections from the Globe heating up will be hardly noticable.

The problem is still demonstrating the connection between warming and CO2.

What do you suppose will be the impact on elections if, even with the El Nino, the temps stay flat? What if they rise in excess of predictions?

 

[frazzledgear]

Maybe all the dying Dinosaurs released gas in unison, those forming a greenhouse cloud over the earth. Just an idea?

Carbon, the 4th most abundant chemical on the planet, goes through a known but poorly understood life cycle on this planet that starts and ends with carbon existing in the sediment. Plants and animals do not release more carbon as rotting bodies than they consumed to form those bodies in the first place. As dead things, very little of that carbon is released back to nature in the form of carbon dioxide as opposed to other kinds of gases - and most of the carbon in the rotting bodies of plants and animals is put back into the sediment in the form of carbon again -where it starts its cycle on this planet all over again, only a fraction of its time which is spent inside living animals and plants. A critical and NECESSARY stage in the life cycle of carbon is existing in our atmosphere in the form of CO2. A gas without which no life on this planet is even possible.

The notion that NATURE doesn't know what its doing with carbon, can't possibly handle the life cycle of carbon on this planet PROPERLY after all after doing so throughout the millenia and during FAR worse conditions than dealing with the puny existence of man -to the point where MAN must take over nature's job because WE know so much better how to actually run nature than NATURE itself does -is sheer arrogant HUBRIS. MINDBOGGLINGLY arrogant. But totally consistent with liberal mentality that views man to be such a destructive and powerful force that man's mere EXISTENCE has put our planet on a death spiral, having OVERPOWERED nature itself. And while nature was more than capable of dealing with being bombarded with meteors for eons on end, the most destructive volcanic eruptions imaginable, nonstop tidal waves, hurricanes, massive earthquakes, massive ice ages etc. that are all part of the truly awesome force of nature -we now know nature has been rendered incapable and impotent against the "awesome" force that is MAN!!!! (a few bars of the Star Wars theme inserted here) ROFLMAO We have even less impact on nature than a few fleas on a dog arguing about which them owns the dog. Man doesn't have the power to destroy the planet and man can't save it either. We can't control the life cycle of carbon on this planet because we don't even UNDERSTAND IT, much less have ANY credible evidence whatsoever that it is dangerously out of whack! What we DO know for a scientific fact is that life did just fine when CO2 levels were MANY times higher than they are today and without the appearance of any doomsday scenario. Hardly grounds for demanding the most advanced nations forfeit their quality of life and the wealthiest nations on this planet fork over their wealth to countries that didn't create or earn it as if THAT would somehow "save the planet".

There have been thousands years long EONS -MANY TIMES now on this planet where carbon dioxide levels were MUCH higher than exist today -anywhere from 3-20 times higher than exists today. Nearly all of which occurred even before the existence of man and all of which occurred before the industrial age where man was putting several times higher amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere than today. Periods where nature itself dumped CO2 into the atmosphere at far higher levels than man has ever done. Yet without any of the doom-and-gloom scenarios the drama queens insist will follow even a MINUSCULE rise in CO2 levels today! And MOST importantly occurred with life in FULL BLOOM and getting along just fine! One way or another, that carbon WILL end up in our atmosphere in the form of CO2 no matter what and at times will be at FAR, FAR higher levels than exist today -because it is a vital and critically necessary step in the life cycle of carbon on this planet in the first place. PROVABLY one in which CO2 existing at much higher levels in the atmosphere than exists today is actually a CRITICAL part of nature's design. A cycle in which the never ending ARROGANCE of man can only pretend to understand but clearly does NOT.

This whole thing has been a FRAUD, one in which the perpetrators saw the means for exploiting a flimsy scientific theory that was based on FLAWED assumptions in the first place -but one they just LOVED for the purpose of furthering their OWN goals that have NOTHING to do with the phony ass bullshit about "saving the planet". And EVERYTHING to do with forcing THE largest transfer of wealth from those who created and earned it -to those who didn't. Even if that transfer is made, it will have ZERO impact on atmospheric levels of CO2. NONE - and the perpetrators of this fraud KNOW IT. But this was never about CO2 in the first place -but how to steal the wealth from those who created and earned it. These people are in reality just the same kind of filthy slime thugs who think they are entitled to what others have worked for and want to just steal it away from them -but on a global level. These people all belong in PRISON.

 

[saveliberty]

Sometimes of threads like this one, I wonder, are we preventing a smarter and better species from taking over the planet? I imagine Raptors thought the same thing as us. Man, we are the top of the food chain. No where to go from here.

 

[Caligirl]

So, this stable temperature phase that we're sort of in right now was predicted in 2007 in the journal Science. It also predicted rapid warming after 2009, concurrent with el nino, ... which has now officially formed in the pacific.

Global warming will step up after 2009: scientists

Thu Aug 9, 2007 2:13pm EDT

In research published in the journal Science, Smith and his colleagues predicted that the next three or four years would show little warming despite an overall forecast that saw warming over the decade.

<snip>

The real heat will start after 2009, they said.

Until then, the natural forces will offset the expected warming caused by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, which releases the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.

Global warming will step up after 2009: scientists | Reuters

Should be interesting to see what effects this has on 2010 and 2012 political races, if weather heats up and some politicians claim we shouldn't do anything about it.

Unless the economy heats up, any impact on elections from the Globe heating up will be hardly noticable.

The problem is still demonstrating the connection between warming and CO2.

What do you suppose will be the impact on elections if, even with the El Nino, the temps stay flat? What if they rise in excess of predictions?

If temperatures stay flat with an el nino, then that is something to sit up and take notice. That is like saying 'what if next summer's temperatures are cooler than this winter's temperatures.' It ain't gonna happen, el nino is a warming event like rotating back to face the sun is a warming event.

Actually, my best guess is that in the end it will be cost that will drive change to renewable energy. When renewables are cheaper and fossil fuels more expensive, people will use renewables. But I do like to think that people would do the right thing (live responsibly) just for the sake of it.

Here's a cartoon I saw today:

 

[saveliberty]

Like everything government rushes to complete for our good, environmental protection is no different. These light blubs save energy. Never mind they have a substance that we complained bitterly to China about putting in toys. Plastic will be here forever in landfills or where ever it was dropped. When is government going to ban plastics? Nuclear power is limitless in suppply and has no dependence on weather or sunlight. Where is the rush to make containment safer?