NASA bolsters Global Cooling:

[saveliberty]

Nope, Weekly Readers were all about another ice age in the early 70s. That and how pollution was going to destroy the planet before now.

 

[Big Fitz]

I ask the question for the Chicken Little Brigade.

HOW IS MAN AT FAULT OR ABLE TO FIX THE COOLING SUN?

 

[konradv]

Nope, Weekly Readers were all about another ice age in the early 70s. That and how pollution was going to destroy the planet before now.

Was that a peer-reviewed Weekly Reader?

 

[konradv]

I ask the question for the Chicken Little Brigade.

HOW IS MAN AT FAULT OR ABLE TO FIX THE COOLING SUN?

Irrelevant. It's about GHGs and trapping energy. The fact that are also natural cycles only seems to be important when it's convenient to the deniers. So, we may be cooler for a while, that doesn't change a thing about AGW theory. When the cycles reverse heating will continue. It's simple logic.

WHAT HAPPENS TO ENERGY ABSORBED BY CO2 AND RE-EMITTED TOWARDS EARTH?

I can do all caps, too. Can you give an intelligent response to MY question?

 

[Roudy]

so we are going into an ice age?

again?

Like in the 70's. I recall the 70's, it was fucking cold with snow up past my nuts.

It's going to hit 80 today.

personally I'm all for global warming. but there's nothing we can do about the sun

That's exactly what I'm saying.

 

[konradv]

so we are going into an ice age?

again?

Like in the 70's. I recall the 70's, it was fucking cold with snow up past my nuts.

It's going to hit 80 today.

personally I'm all for global warming. but there's nothing we can do about the sun

That's exactly what I'm saying.

So, the OP is worthless! AGW is about man's contribution to climate and the sun is a mere distraction. Of course, it has the greatest effect on climate, but it's irrelevant to the question of man's contribution. Since the properties of GHGs are well known, the real questions are "when" and "how bad", NOT "if".

 

[Big Fitz]

I ask the question for the Chicken Little Brigade.

HOW IS MAN AT FAULT OR ABLE TO FIX THE COOLING SUN?

Irrelevant. It's about GHGs and trapping energy. The fact that are also natural cycles only seems to be important when it's convenient to the deniers. So, we may be cooler for a while, that doesn't change a thing about AGW theory. When the cycles reverse heating will continue. It's simple logic.

WHAT HAPPENS TO ENERGY ABSORBED BY CO2 AND RE-EMITTED TOWARDS EARTH?

I can do all caps, too. Can you give an intelligent response to MY question?

Ah the 'trapped energy' argument that Westwall, Wirebender and IanC among others have debunked for the last 10 months.

So now there's less energy sent to the planet, therefore this doesn't affect your fantasy how?

Sorry, 'sucker' is not tattooed on my forehead, but I could recommend some cream for you to get rid of yours.

 

[saveliberty]

Nope, Weekly Readers were all about another ice age in the early 70s. That and how pollution was going to destroy the planet before now.

Was that a peer-reviewed Weekly Reader?

Why was the government spreading news reports to little kids, if it was a lie?

 

[westwall]

I ask the question for the Chicken Little Brigade.

HOW IS MAN AT FAULT OR ABLE TO FIX THE COOLING SUN?

Irrelevant. It's about GHGs and trapping energy. The fact that are also natural cycles only seems to be important when it's convenient to the deniers. So, we may be cooler for a while, that doesn't change a thing about AGW theory. When the cycles reverse heating will continue. It's simple logic.

WHAT HAPPENS TO ENERGY ABSORBED BY CO2 AND RE-EMITTED TOWARDS EARTH?

I can do all caps, too. Can you give an intelligent response to MY question?

If what you say were true then the little drop in solar radiation should not affect the global temps at all. And yet, there it is. A little drop in radiation and we get a drop in temp. We get an increase in solar radiation and we get an increase in temp.

In the real world that would be called cause and effect. In your world that is ....well to be honest I don't live in your world (thankfully) so I don't know what goes on in your pointy little heads. I don't know how you rationalise away observed effects. That is only in the realm of religion and I'm not religious.

 

[saveliberty]

Observable behavior really stinks for Faithers. Much better to have raw data manipulated and made into a nice graph showing unobserved results.

 

[Big Fitz]

Yeahhhh... how 'bout that?

 

[Roudy]

Observable behavior really stinks for Faithers. Much better to have raw data manipulated and made into a nice graph showing unobserved results.

Bottom line is, the Global Warming crowd has changed the logo of their hoax to "Climate Change" after at least four years of scientific data that refuted their claims. Talk about an "Inconvenient Truth".

I don't understand what they are pushing now? What is it, that the Earth's climate changes? Well duh.

 

[saveliberty]

Changing in some ironic way that will destroy humans, because humans supposedly are the root cause.

Your wallet will set your guilt free!

 

[Old Rocks]

Nope, Weekly Readers were all about another ice age in the early 70s. That and how pollution was going to destroy the planet before now.

Now why does it not surprise me that you would get your science from the Weekly Reader. I read the National Academy of Science's article in the same year that it was published in 1975. And in it, they stated there were too many unknowns at that point to make any solid predicitons concerning warming or cooling, but most scientists thought the increasing GHGs would create a warming.

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

 

[Old Rocks]

Observable behavior really stinks for Faithers. Much better to have raw data manipulated and made into a nice graph showing unobserved results.

Bottom line is, the Global Warming crowd has changed the logo of their hoax to "Climate Change" after at least four years of scientific data that refuted their claims. Talk about an "Inconvenient Truth".

I don't understand what they are pushing now? What is it, that the Earth's climate changes? Well duh.

Link?

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[Old Rocks]

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

AGU Position Statement

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

 

[IanC]

Observable behavior really stinks for Faithers. Much better to have raw data manipulated and made into a nice graph showing unobserved results.

they fell in love with their pretty little theory and now they just dont want to believe that it needs a complete revamping.

 

[Old Rocks]

How about some real scientific articles from either one of you demonstrating your yap-yap?

 

[saveliberty]

How about some real scientific articles from either one of you demonstrating your yap-yap?

How about starting with Faithers switching from global warming to climate change for starters.

 

[westwall]

How about some real scientific articles from either one of you demonstrating your yap-yap?

What, you mean like the vomitus you constantly spew? That crapola? Tell you what. You start presnting things that aren't based solely on computer models and we'll listen. Of course the papers that aren't based on CM's tend to be made up out of whole cloth so your work is cut out for you.