Odd's on warmer future? 1 in 10,0000!!!!!

[konradv]

If scientists in the 70s were predicting a new Ice Age, the question you should be asking is, "what made them change their minds so fast?" Really you're talking about two different things; one a natural event that would take thousands of years to become reality and the other the result of human activity predicted to become reality in less than a 100. Why are these two concepts even in the same conversation, except as fodder for the deniers to confuse the debate?

 

[Old Rocks]

Dingbat claims and lies are all that people like Walleyes have now. What we saw happen to agriculture in 2010 verified the predictions concerning the dangers of the warming to agriculture. The commodity market confirmed it.

 

[skookerasbil]

If scientists in the 70s were predicting a new Ice Age, the question you should be asking is, "what made them change their minds so fast?" Really you're talking about two different things; one a natural event that would take thousands of years to become reality and the other the result of human activity predicted to become reality in less than a 100. Why are these two concepts even in the same conversation, except as fodder for the deniers to confuse the debate?

like I said.........the FAITHERS have the political IQ's of a car battery terminal. But let me drop you a hint s0n.........the change of mind has nothing to do with science.

Its no different than some crafty guy waking up one morning and saying to himself, "Gee......I can make a big plastic ring that people can put around their torso and twirl it.........call it the Hoola Hoop. Millions of jackasses will buy it and I'll retire to the Canary Islands!!!"

 

[skookerasbil]

Dingbat claims and lies are all that people like Walleyes have now. What we saw happen to agriculture in 2010 verified the predictions concerning the dangers of the warming to agriculture. The commodity market confirmed it.

In other words...........for the Faither k00ks, the only important data on temperatures is from the last 20 years!!!!

 

[editec]

Yeah this is the place people in the know come to get their critiques on science.

You people crack me up, you really do.

Climate science is not politics, kids.

It isn't subject to a vote, and wishing something were so (or not so) will not make it so.

What you or I think about science (or scintists) makes absolutely no freaking difference.

 

[konradv]

If scientists in the 70s were predicting a new Ice Age, the question you should be asking is, "what made them change their minds so fast?" Really you're talking about two different things; one a natural event that would take thousands of years to become reality and the other the result of human activity predicted to become reality in less than a 100. Why are these two concepts even in the same conversation, except as fodder for the deniers to confuse the debate?

like I said.........the FAITHERS have the political IQ's of a car battery terminal. But let me drop you a hint s0n.........the change of mind has nothing to do with science.

What about the second part? You think we have the memory of a car battery? You haven't addressed the fact that something that will take thousands of years has nothing whatsoever to do with a theory that predicts something will happen in the next 100!!! Your theories have nothing to do with science either, since neither it nor logic fit into what is for you, essentially a political question.

 

[IanC]

Dingbat claims and lies are all that people like Walleyes have now. What we saw happen to agriculture in 2010 verified the predictions concerning the dangers of the warming to agriculture. The commodity market confirmed it.

hahahahahahahaha

what did the commodities market say about carbon trading?

hahahahahahahaha

better just stick to weather reports

 

[westwall]

If scientists in the 70s were predicting a new Ice Age, the question you should be asking is, "what made them change their minds so fast?" Really you're talking about two different things; one a natural event that would take thousands of years to become reality and the other the result of human activity predicted to become reality in less than a 100. Why are these two concepts even in the same conversation, except as fodder for the deniers to confuse the debate?

What made them change their minds was the world started to get warmer instead of colder. Now the world is starting to cool again following natural cycles yet again and the propaganda is being ratcheted up into high gear to try and get all these "green laws" passed before it becomes so obvious they are wrong that any nimrod will know they are lying.

I suggest you go back and look at NY Times articles on the climate konrad. Every 20 to 30 years the "consensus" of the day was hot, cold, hot, cold, hot, cold....etc. etc. etc.

You are the only folks who can't or won't understand that this is run by cycles.

 

[westwall]

Dingbat claims and lies are all that people like Walleyes have now. What we saw happen to agriculture in 2010 verified the predictions concerning the dangers of the warming to agriculture. The commodity market confirmed it.

And the prices havn't come close to what the wheat prices were in the 1921-1922 famine have they? NO they havn't. You are the biggest perverter of the truth on this board after truthiness matters.

You fools have painted yourselves into a corner. Any theory that has no way of proving it flase is no longher a theory. It is a "belief system" that's a polite way of saying it's a religion for the comprehension challenged.

 

[westwall]

Yeah this is the place people in the know come to get their critiques on science.

You people crack me up, you really do.

Climate science is not politics, kids.

It isn't subject to a vote, and wishing something were so (or not so) will not make it so.

What you or I think about science (or scintists) makes absolutely no freaking difference.

It does when they commit fraud to further their grant recieving abilities which in turn helps politicians with their power grabbing endeavors.

All climate science has become is politics. There is no science anymore.

 

[westwall]

If scientists in the 70s were predicting a new Ice Age, the question you should be asking is, "what made them change their minds so fast?" Really you're talking about two different things; one a natural event that would take thousands of years to become reality and the other the result of human activity predicted to become reality in less than a 100. Why are these two concepts even in the same conversation, except as fodder for the deniers to confuse the debate?

like I said.........the FAITHERS have the political IQ's of a car battery terminal. But let me drop you a hint s0n.........the change of mind has nothing to do with science.

What about the second part? You think we have the memory of a car battery? You haven't addressed the fact that something that will take thousands of years has nothing whatsoever to do with a theory that predicts something will happen in the next 100!!! Your theories have nothing to do with science either, since neither it nor logic fit into what is for you, essentially a political question.

No you don't. AGW cultists have the institutional memory of a gnat. What happened 5 years ago (much less 50) is immaterial.

 

[skookerasbil]

This thread is a perfect one to keenly illustrate the inability of some minds to properly connect the dots.

Some idiot on this thread said there is no correlation between this climate science and politics = nothing less than fcukking amazing. My God........how do these people navigate in the real world??

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey West..........notice that none of the k00ks came even close to addresssing this from the article I posted................and lets remember its from a German Publication.



In the 1974 report, Der Spiegel wrote about the warming period of 1890 – 1945. Recall how many of today’s scientists are claiming that the recent rise in temps over the last 50 years is “unprecedented”. Der Spiegel, however, documents that the same happened in the early part of the 20th century:

In the time between 1890 and 1945 scientists registered a general warming of the earth’s climate. The global annual average temperature rose during this time by about 0.7°C. — in polar regions the rise was even several degrees.




Nope...........conveniently disregarded Instead, the response is to post up anything..........as long as it is from the last 10 years or so.

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey West..........this is from a recent Der Spiegel article!!!!! Check this out.............more information the k00ks dont want people to know about...............

05/07/2007

Global Warming...Not the End of the World as We Know It

By Olaf Stampf

How bad is climate change really? Are catastrophic floods and terrible droughts headed our way? Despite widespread fears of a greenhouse hell, the latest computer simulations are delivering far less dramatic predictions about tomorrow's climate.

Svante Arrhenius, the father of the greenhouse effect, would be called a heretic today. Far from issuing the sort of dire predictions about climate change which are common nowadays, the Swedish physicist dared to predict a paradise on earth for humans when he announced, in April 1896, that temperatures were rising -- and that it would be a blessing for all.

Arrhenius, who later won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, calculated that the release of carbon dioxide -- or carbonic acid as it was then known -- through burning coal, oil and natural gas would lead to a significant rise in temperatures worldwide. But, he argued, "by the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates," potentially making poor harvests and famine a thing of the past.

Arrhenius was merely expressing a view that was firmly entrenched in the collective consciousness of the day: warm times are good times; cold times are bad.

During the so-called Medieval Warm Period between about 900 and 1300 A.D., for example, the Vikings raised livestock on Greenland and sailed to North America. New cities were built all across Europe, and the continent's population grew from 30 million to 80 million.

The consequences of the colder temperatures that plunged civilization into the so-called Little Ice Age for several centuries after 1300 were devastating. Summers were rainy, winters cold, and in many places temperatures were too low for grain crops to mature. Famines and epidemics raged, and average life expectancy dropped by 10 years. In Germany, thousands of villages were abandoned and entire stretches of land depopulated.

The shock produced by the cold was as deep-seated it was long-lasting. When temperatures plunged unexpectedly once again in the 1960s, many meteorologists were quick to warn people about the coming of a new ice age -- supposedly triggered by man-made air pollution. Hardly anyone at the time believed a warming trend could pose a threat.


FROM THE MAGAZINE
Find out how you can reprint this DER SPIEGEL article in your publication.
.It was not until the rise of the environmental movement in the 1980s that everything suddenly changed. From then on it was almost a foregone conclusion that global warming could only be perceived as a disaster for the earth's climate. Environmentalists, adopting a strategy typical of the Catholic Church, have been warning us about the horrors of greenhouse gas hell ever since -- painting it as a punishment for the sin of meddling with creation. What was conveniently ignored, however, is that humanity has been reshaping the planet for a very long time, first by clearing forests and plowing fields, and later by building roads, cities and factories.

In the age of climate change, it has become a popular social pastime to scour the weather forecast for omens of doom. Has it ever been as hot in April as it is this year? Is this lack of rain normal? Could all this mean that the end is nigh?



DER SPIEGEL
Graphic: Our Changing World
Nowadays hardly anyone dares to question the increasingly shrill warnings about our climate, as more and more people jump on the hand-wringing bandwagon. United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, for example, recently said that climate change poses at least as big a danger to the world as war. German Chancellor Angela Merkel agrees, calling developments "more than alarming," and asking: "Are we willing to accept the fact that we now have completely unprecedented weather phenomena, such as tropical nights in the Harz (Mountains) region?" The fact that tropical nights, as every meteorologist knows, are nothing new in Germany -- every summer has always had a few -- seems to have escaped her attention


Global Warming: Not the End of the World as We Know It - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

 

[skookerasbil]

The medical benefits of higher average temperatures have also been ignored. According to Richard Tol, an environmental economist, "warming temperatures will mean that in 2050 there will be about 40,000 fewer deaths in Germany attributable to cold-related illnesses like the flu."

 

[skookerasbil]

More from the article..............


Another widespread fear about global warming -- that it will cause super-storms that could devastate towns and villages with unprecedented fury -- also appears to be unfounded. Current long-term simulations, at any rate, do not suggest that such a trend will in fact materialize.
"According to our computer model, neither the number nor intensity of storms is increasing," says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Hamburg-based Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, one of the world's leading climate research centers. "Only the boundaries of low-pressure zones are changing slightly, meaning that weather is becoming more severe in Scandinavia and less so in the Mediterranean."

According to another persistent greenhouse legend, massive flooding will strike major coastal cities, raising horrific scenarios of New York, London and Shanghai sinking into the tide. However this horror story is a relic of the late 1980s, when climate simulations were far less precise than they are today. At the time, some experts believed that the Antarctic ice shield could melt, which would in fact lead to a dramatic 60-meter (197-foot) rise in sea levels. The nuclear industry quickly seized upon and publicized the scenario, which it recognized as an argument in favor of its emissions-free power plants.

But it quickly became apparent that the horrific tale of a melting South Pole was nothing but fiction. The average temperature in the Antarctic is -30 degrees Celsius. Humanity cannot possibly burn enough oil and coal to melt this giant block of ice. On the contrary, current climate models suggest that the Antarctic will even increase in mass: Global warming will cause more water to evaporate, and part of that moisture will fall as snow over Antarctica, causing the ice shield to grow. As a result, the total rise in sea levels would in fact be reduced by about 5 cm (2 inches).

It's a different story in the warmer regions surrounding the North Pole. According to an American study published last week, the Arctic could be melting even faster than previously assumed. But because the Arctic sea ice already floats in the water, its melting will have virtually no effect on sea levels.









How much am I laughing?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

[skookerasbil]

CLIMATOLOGISTS BAFFLED BY GLOBAL WARMING TIME-OUT


A funny thing happened on the road to global warming. Mother Nature is simply not cooperating. Germany's Der Spiegel noted this problem for global warming alarmists last week:

Global warming appears to have stalled; climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years.
Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.
The Earth's average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.
Der Spiegel quotes Prof. Mojib Latif of Germany's Leibniz Institute, a noted climatologist about this lack of global warming:

The planet's temperature curve rose sharply for almost 30 years, as global temperatures increased by an average of 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.25 degrees Fahrenheit) from the 1970s to the late 1990s.
At present, however, the warming is taking a break.
Latif, one of Germany's best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau. "There can be no argument about that," he says. "We have to face that fact."


CLIMATOLOGISTS BAFFLED BY GLOBAL WARMING TIME-OUT









more laughing..................

 

[konradv]

More GHGs, more heat. Simple as that. To say otherwise seems to go against Conservation of Energy. How can you be sure a 25-30% increase in CO2 (10-11% increase in carbon forcing on the log scale) won't go even further to reach a tipping point that Arrhenius hadn't counted on? A relatively small increase in CO2 and concommitent rise in temp could easily lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere and methane release from perma-frost, adding even more to the earth's GHG load. Looking back at history is nice, but what we really need to be concerned about, since we emit more CO2 into the atmosphere in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year.

 

[IanC]

you need some new materia konradv


the IPCC says that 2x CO2 adds almost 4 watts per M2. the error bars for water systems are 10-20 watts each. they are trying to detect the effect of one variable that is dwarfed by the uncertainties. not something I am willing to bet trillions of dollars on.

 

[uscitizen]

Odd's on warmer future? 1 in 10,0000!!!!!


surely more people than that are going to hell.