NASA's top global warming nut admits warming has stopped for 10 years...

[Obamanation]

OK --- you admit that the earth will enter a cooling trend and I will admit we have been in a warming trend!! FAIR???

 

[editec]

Bluegrass Pundit: NASA's top global warming nut admits warming has stopped for 10 years...


You mean liberals lied???? WHO FUCKIN KNEW?

Hansen stresses the uncertainties around these predictions. "It is difficult to predict time of collapse in such a nonlinear problem ... An ice sheet response time of centuries seems probable, and we cannot rule out large changes on decadal time-scales once wide-scale surface melt is underway."

[50] He concludes that "present knowledge does not permit accurate specification of the dangerous level of human-made [greehouse gases].

However, it is much lower than has commonly been assumed. If we have not already passed the dangerous level, the energy infrastructure in place ensures that we will pass it within several decades."[50]

 

[Saigon]

Obama -

If you are not willing to take this issue seriously, there's little point discussing it.

 

[Obamanation]

I am taking it seriously. Just because I have looked at the data and watched the trends and KNOW that the earth will/has entered a cooling trend already and you refuse to admit it... it doesn't mean that I don;t take it seriously. I just look at it realistically.

 

[Saigon]

I am taking it seriously. Just because I have looked at the data and watched the trends and KNOW that the earth will/has entered a cooling trend already and you refuse to admit it... it doesn't mean that I don;t take it seriously. I just look at it realistically.

Yes, it does. It means exactly that.

Because there is no science that says that the world is entering a cooling phase. That's just nonsense.

ALL of the science is pointing to rising temperatures, which is why ALL FIFTY of the world's 50 major scientific organisations back this position, and why every major conservative political party around the world backs this position too.

I would be delighted to post a half-dozen studies here which back this up, but I don't believe you are interested in understanding this topic.

 

[Saigon]

Here is one for you to start on:

A common misunderstanding of the climate system characterizes it like a pendulum. The planet will warm up to "cancel out" a previous period of cooling, spurred by some internal equilibrium. This view of the climate is incorrect. Internal variability will move energy between the ocean and the atmosphere, causing short-term warming and cooling of the surface in events such as El Nino and La Nina, and longer-term changes when similar cycles operate on decadal scales. However, internal forces do not cause climate change. Appreciable changes in climate are the result of changes in the energy balance of the Earth, which requires "external" forcings, such as changes in solar output, albedo, and atmospheric greenhouse gases. These forcings can be cyclical, as they are in the ice ages, but they can come in different shapes entirely.

For this reason, "it's just a natural cycle" is a bit of a cop-out argument. The Earth doesn't warm up because it feels like it. It warms up because something forces it to. Scientists keep track of natural forcings, but the observed warming of the planet over the second half of the 20th century can only be explained by adding in anthropogenic radiative forcings, namely increases in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

Of course, it's always possible that some natural cycle exists, unknown to scientists and their instruments, that is currently causing the planet to warm. There's always a chance that we could be totally wrong. This omnipresent fact of science is called irreducible uncertainty, because it can never be entirely eliminated. However, it's very unlikely that such a cycle exists.

It's a natural cycle

 

[Obamanation]

The southern hemisphere has been cooling over the last 10 years, just about as much as the north has been warming. There is no proof within observational data of warming outside of natural variation. When 3 of the highest 5 or 6 years in the temperature record (since 1890) occurred over 70 years ago and 1900 was warmer than recent years in the USA (where the best data are), we are nowhere near statistical proof, nor even evidence of warming. Modelers are still unable to include important variables and no one is able to predict the future. At least Hadley Centre have tried (below). While CO2 continues to rise, the temperature has stabilized at a warm level, but not unusually so. Which way will it go? The world seems to be betting on warming. However, the probability of cooling may be equally valid and we must be prepared for both. Cooling presents the real danger. Things that go up and down only go so high. It has always been this way. Image of current northern sea ice (latest). Check the S. hemisphere sea ice (latest).

 

[editec]

It is difficult to predict time of collapse in such a nonlinear problem

I suspect the nonlinearity is part of the problem that some of us just cannot get out heads around.

Global Weirding isn't the only question where non-linearity confuses people into thinking the problem is obvious and easily understood.

We see that same sort of linear thinking in questions surrounding economics, too.

For instance, FLAT TAX advocates are attempting to apply a linear thinking solution to a very complex non-linear problem.

What's the old saying?

"Every simpleton has a simple solution to a complex problem...that will NOT work"​

 

[LoneLaugher]

Nobody wants the idea of climate change to be a hoax more than I do. I am not into being inconvenienced by things like floods and severe storms. But....unfortunately, the science is clear. This shit is happening and it would be a good idea to pay attention to it.

Those who are so afraid that they close their eyes are of little use.

 

[Obamanation]

What was it Chicken Little said?.... Oh yeah,

THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!

hahahahahahaha!!!

 

[Saigon]

The southern hemisphere has been cooling over the last 10 years, just about as much as the north has been warming. (latest).

Absolute nonsense. There is not a single person on this forum who thinks that - least of all you.

There is no science whatsoever to back up this claim.

Why do you achieve by reducing the debate to made up fairy tales?

 

[GuyPinestra]

GHG's are a GLOBAL problem, and until you can get China to the table there is NO POINT in cutting off our economy in the vain attempt at saving the planet. That's why the Kyoto Accords were such a waste of time.

Come back and see me when Beijing gets on board.

Anyone care to address the 800 pound gorilla in the room?

 

[Redfish]

Bluegrass Pundit: NASA's top global warming nut admits warming has stopped for 10 years...

You mean liberals lied???? WHO FUCKIN KNEW?

I guess you forgot about natural cycles. It's funny how the skeptics/deniers will hammer the proponents with the fact that there are natural cycles, but when faced with a consequence, ignore the implications! Of course, natural cycles may blunt the rise in temps from time to time, but if CO2 keeps going up, so will retained IR radiation, making another upturn in temps inevitable and that much more severe, when the natural cycles reverse themselves. You need to study the science of the theory and not just parrot propaganda from biased sources.

Question for you: what % of the atmosphere is CO2? What was the % of CO2 in the years 1700, 700, and 7000 BC?

 

[Redfish]

Nobody wants the idea of climate change to be a hoax more than I do. I am not into being inconvenienced by things like floods and severe storms. But....unfortunately, the science is clear. This shit is happening and it would be a good idea to pay attention to it.

Those who are so afraid that they close their eyes are of little use.

Yes, the climate is changing, it has always been changing since the earth was created by the big bang, God, the sun or whatever you believe created our planet.

the point is that man has never had anything to do with it, cannot stop or reverse it, and is an insignificant dot in time in the life of the planet.

 

[Saigon]

Redfish -

The point is that WHEN the climate changes - something CAUSES that change to happen. Climate is not a pendulum. It changes only when forced to change.

This article explains this point rather well - I hope you'll read it.

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

 

[Redfish]

Redfish -

The point is that WHEN the climate changes - something CAUSES that change to happen. Climate is not a pendulum. It changes only when forced to change.

This article explains this point rather well - I hope you'll read it.

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

I have read it. Its bunk.

The climate of our planet is controlled by the Sun, the tilt of the earth on its axis, ocean currents, earthquakes, and other natural cycles. The climate is not controlled by soccer moms in SUVs or chinese coal fired power plants. Those things may affect pollution, but not climate.

 

[konradv]

Redfish -

The point is that WHEN the climate changes - something CAUSES that change to happen. Climate is not a pendulum. It changes only when forced to change.

This article explains this point rather well - I hope you'll read it.

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

I have read it. Its bunk.

The climate of our planet is controlled by the Sun, the tilt of the earth on its axis, ocean currents, earthquakes, and other natural cycles. The climate is not controlled by soccer moms in SUVs or chinese coal fired power plants. Those things may affect pollution, but not climate.

So you deny that CO2 and other gases can absorb infra-red radiation? No wonder we've got to import scientists from India, Japan and China!

 

[Redfish]

Redfish -

The point is that WHEN the climate changes - something CAUSES that change to happen. Climate is not a pendulum. It changes only when forced to change.

This article explains this point rather well - I hope you'll read it.

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

I have read it. Its bunk.

The climate of our planet is controlled by the Sun, the tilt of the earth on its axis, ocean currents, earthquakes, and other natural cycles. The climate is not controlled by soccer moms in SUVs or chinese coal fired power plants. Those things may affect pollution, but not climate.

So you deny that CO2 and other gases can absorb infra-red radiation? No wonder we've got to import scientists from India, Japan and China!

same question I asked earlier: what % of the atmosphere is CO2? What was that % 500, 5000, and 5,000,000 years ago? If you cannot answer that then your theory fails.

 

[konradv]

Bluegrass Pundit: NASA's top global warming nut admits warming has stopped for 10 years...

You mean liberals lied???? WHO FUCKIN KNEW?

I guess you forgot about natural cycles. It's funny how the skeptics/deniers will hammer the proponents with the fact that there are natural cycles, but when faced with a consequence, ignore the implications! Of course, natural cycles may blunt the rise in temps from time to time, but if CO2 keeps going up, so will retained IR radiation, making another upturn in temps inevitable and that much more severe, when the natural cycles reverse themselves. You need to study the science of the theory and not just parrot propaganda from biased sources.

Question for you: what % of the atmosphere is CO2? What was the % of CO2 in the years 1700, 700, and 7000 BC?

The important thing to know is that it's been going up since the advent of the Industrial revolution, about 30-40%. Given the known ability of CO2 to absorb IR, what do you think is happening to that absorbed energy?

 

[Dubya]

What was it Chicken Little said?.... Oh yeah,

THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!

hahahahahahaha!!!

The sky doesn't fall, fool, but can man create a very different world and cause it to change so quickly that most species of life will not be able to adapt to such rapid changes? One way to do it is to emit enough carbon dioxide quickly enough into the atmosphere that it causes the Earth to rapidly start emitting it's own carbon to the carbon cycle. There is no theory involved in this, because we can dig up the permafrost and find the organic material frozen inside it. We can find the microbes that convert that organic material to carbon dioxide if oxygen is present or methane if it isn't. We can fly over these areas, like we have done and detect the buildup of gases in remote areas as the permafrost melts.

At some point the amount of these "natural" emissions triggered by the warming we have caused will exceed the Earth's ability to remove carbon, so carbon will increase in the atmosphere unless mankind figures out a way to remove it. There is no doubt this is happening and the uncertainty only involves at what point and at what rate will the Earth start increasing atmospheric carbon without human assistance. We already know of species adapted to cooler climates that are heading for extinction as their habitat continues to decrease and it isn't just a few of the most well known species. Scientists are warning that there is an obvious potential of creating rapid climate change that will cause mass extinction like it has in the past, but this time a supposedly intelligent being is aware of it ahead of time and is contributing to the destruction.

Perhaps the message about Humpty Dumpty was lost on your generation, but it is possible to break something that can't be fixed.