PAPER: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...

[hjmick]

Oh for Christ's sake. Slather on the sunblock, carry a coat, and shut the fuck up.

 

[konradv]

Here's the deal, weather experts and even fake scientists don't refer to it as the "ice age". It is the "most recent ice age". What does that mean? It means that the current civilization is lucky enough to be living at a time when we are coming out of an ice age. Instead of counting their blessings, the pseudo-scientists are paid by federal grants to create a fake crisis of "man-made global warming" and tie it to a gigantic extortion scam designed to take the United States from the status of the only super-power on the globe to just another 3rd world country. Thank you Barry and the dimocrats.

Not a bit of science in this post! So tell me again, who's making this a political football?

 

[skookerasbil]

Here's the deal, weather experts and even fake scientists don't refer to it as the "ice age". It is the "most recent ice age". What does that mean? It means that the current civilization is lucky enough to be living at a time when we are coming out of an ice age. Instead of counting their blessings, the pseudo-scientists are paid by federal grants to create a fake crisis of "man-made global warming" and tie it to a gigantic extortion scam designed to take the United States from the status of the only super-power on the globe to just another 3rd world country. Thank you Barry and the dimocrats.

Not a bit of science in this post! So tell me again, who's making this a political football?

Of course it becomes a political football when the date is fudged.

What politician is going to want to rob taxpayers and tell them, "Hey......we're launching into full support of the snake oil business!!!"

 

[Old Rocks]

Yup, now it's 'Global Cooling.' I predicted this years ago. It's all just a Socialist/Communist Globalist scam in the end. The Global Warming nutters' 15 Minutes are now up. Time for them to go away.

Time Mag Flashback: Man Made Global Cooling 1974

So, Teatimer, you get your science from Time magazine. Not surprising.

What 1970s science said about global cooling

Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated
enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prize winning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by independent groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement and understanding of carbon dioxide and other atmospheric gases while geologists and
paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why.

An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was
predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales. More importantly than
showing the falsehood of the myth, this review shows the important way scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

 

[konradv]

Here's the deal, weather experts and even fake scientists don't refer to it as the "ice age". It is the "most recent ice age". What does that mean? It means that the current civilization is lucky enough to be living at a time when we are coming out of an ice age. Instead of counting their blessings, the pseudo-scientists are paid by federal grants to create a fake crisis of "man-made global warming" and tie it to a gigantic extortion scam designed to take the United States from the status of the only super-power on the globe to just another 3rd world country. Thank you Barry and the dimocrats.

Not a bit of science in this post! So tell me again, who's making this a political football?

Of course it becomes a political football when the date is fudged.

What politician is going to want to rob taxpayers and tell them, "Hey......we're launching into full support of the snake oil business!!!"

How is the data that shows rising CO2 being fudged? Since we know it can absorb and re-emit IR and that statistically 50% of that would be re-emitted back towards earth, how does that not lead to warming?

 

[Old Rocks]

Forget that shit. I'm for anything that doesn't put carciogenic material into the atmosphere. Putting shit from coal and from the tail pipes of cars into the air we breathe is a dumb arse idea....in any language...

That is, unless you want to go somewhere father than a mile away, or you want to have light in your house and don't want your food to spoil. Then there are hospital emergency rooms where people will die if they don't have electricity. Without modern refrigeration, we couldn't feed 1/4 of the population of this country, so the rest of us would just starve. Not to mention the diesel used used to run farm machinery. Then there are the fertilizer plants which consume huge amounts of energy and increase the productivity of the soil by orders of magnitude. Aside from those trivialities, and a few thousand others, you would have to be stupid to want to use internal combustion engines or electricity.

Furthermore, no one ever claimed that emissions from cars and coal fired power plants are carcinogens.

Pattycake, you continue to be about the dumbest fuck on this board, competeing head on with Frankyboy. What the American Lung Association has to say;

http://www.lungusa.org/assets/documents/healthy-air/coal-fired-plant-hazards.pdf

 

[Old Rocks]

CO2 isn't a pollutant, dipshit.

It is when you pump gigatonnes of it into the atmosphere every year.

Tell that to China. Anyone who does it here gets cited...

Idiot.

Sheesh, Teatimer, who is responsible for most of the present increase of 40% CO2 in the atmosphere. Yes, we are. China has presently surpassed us in the production of CO2, and that is bad on China, but for what is already in the atmosphere, we bear the primary responsibility.

 

[Old Rocks]

CO2 isn't a pollutant, dipshit.

It is when you pump gigatonnes of it into the atmosphere every year.

There's no proof of that at this point.

Even if you could prove it caused global warming, that wouldn't qualify it as a pollutant. In biological terms, a pollutant is substance that is chemically toxic to plant or animal life. CO2 in any amount conceivable in the atmosphere simply doesn't fit the bill.

CO2 in the amount that is being added to the atmosphere creates acidification in the oceans. This adversly affects the single celled animals and plants that are the bottom of the food chain. CO2 is definately a pollutant that is toxic to life when too much is in the atmosphere.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yup, now it's 'Global Cooling.' I predicted this years ago. It's all just a Socialist/Communist Globalist scam in the end. The Global Warming nutters' 15 Minutes are now up. Time for them to go away.

I'm sorry, but the global ice age and the population bomb were the boogeymen of my youth, cannot be recycled in my lifetime. Dismissed.

Were you that stupid then? I read the National Academy of Sciences report on this subject in 1975, and that essentially put to rest all of that nonsense. And why do you continue to be this stupid now?

 

[Old Rocks]

The NCDC is a warmist propaganda organ. There have been numerous thread about how they doctor their data.

None of witch are credible.

They are highly credible. We have examples of the data before it was doctored and after it was doctored. It's obvious Hansen is committing fraud.

OK, flap yap dumbfuck, produce your proof. You know, real scientific papers refuting those of Dr. Hansen. From peer reviewed journals. You do know what those are, do you not? How about you, Annie, do you?

 

[Old Rocks]

Forget that shit. I'm for anything that doesn't put carciogenic material into the atmosphere. Putting shit from coal and from the tail pipes of cars into the air we breathe is a dumb arse idea....in any language...

You seem to be using a computer that runs on electricity and was manufactured and transported. If you don't use anything that is grown, harvested, stored , transported, manufactured or packaged with material or in plants that use fossil fuel generated power, you are not living on this planet.

Ending the use of fossil fuel would cause global famine followed by devastating plagues and the very quick end of civilization.

Can you get through a day without even the tangent use of fossil fuels?

At present, we cannot. But that has to change. And will change. Representatives of the fossil fuel corperations will fight the change tooth and claw, but the change is coming, and some of the present practices will be criminalized worldwide.

 

[Old Rocks]

They are highly credible. We have examples of the data before it was doctored and after it was doctored. It's obvious Hansen is committing fraud.

No they have no credibility, and you know it.

Deniers complain about temperature stations being sited near heat sourced and demand that the data be removed from the data set. Hansen complies and then the deniers whine that the warming trend increased when the bad data was removed and they bitch that the number of stations was reduced. Since the stations use anomalies rather than direct temperatures readings those readings are measured against a 20 or 30 year average to get the deviation from that average for the anomaly. Being near the heat source gives an abnormally high average that the anomaly is measured against yielding an abnormally low anomaly, thus removing stations near heat sources from the data set removes stations that give abnormally low anomalies.

Complying with their demands is what deniers call fraud.

NASA pwns your ass and the ass of every nutter too. For years, every k00k environmental asshole jumped out of their socks to cite NASA shit..........now suddenly its BS.


OK

Getting a bit out in left field there, Steve. Ground stations are not the responsibility of NASA.

 

[skookerasbil]

Im laughing...............

I see "denier" used on this forum all the time.......but the fact is, what we are all seeing a definitive illustratioin of here is "denial". The attempts to distract are laughable.

And heres the thing..........every single environmental radical on here knows their cause is falling like a stone in water. And heres how we know with 100% certainty............

1) On any poll of the public concerns of Americans, "global warming" and "climate change" isnt even on the list anymore.

2) Cap and Trade legislation is dead.

3) Barclays has closed its carbon trading operation in the United States.

4) Financial vehicles ( futures trading) in the area of energy are going huge into clean coal and natural gas and NOT green energy.

5) On an almost weekly basis, green energy companies are going bankrupt.

6) Zero significant climate legislation is coming out of Congress over the past 3 years.






Meanwhile, even network TV ( except for NBC of course) has been featuring stories from Nome and Fairbanks, Alaska where it has been 30-40 degrees below zero for weeks now. The radicals say, "Hey....its winter in Alaska dummy!" while highlighting warmer temperatures elsewhere. Laughable...............

Fact is.........as long as this kind of dynamic exists, people dont take this shit seriously anymore, thus, the emergence of realities listed above.

What will it take to change the landscape? When Nome, Alaska is 50 degrees for 5 weeks straight in January. Otherwise? Nobody cares about the professed "real science".


Want to see the state of alarmist efforts in 2012? ( the irony in real time on this vid is surreal........at 9 seconds = 2006........at 12 seconds = 2012)

Click here >>>>

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18FkBCFD-Wc]Player face plants into goal post [Official Video] - YouTube[/ame]

 

[skookerasbil]

No they have no credibility, and you know it.

Deniers complain about temperature stations being sited near heat sourced and demand that the data be removed from the data set. Hansen complies and then the deniers whine that the warming trend increased when the bad data was removed and they bitch that the number of stations was reduced. Since the stations use anomalies rather than direct temperatures readings those readings are measured against a 20 or 30 year average to get the deviation from that average for the anomaly. Being near the heat source gives an abnormally high average that the anomaly is measured against yielding an abnormally low anomaly, thus removing stations near heat sources from the data set removes stations that give abnormally low anomalies.

Complying with their demands is what deniers call fraud.

NASA pwns your ass and the ass of every nutter too. For years, every k00k environmental asshole jumped out of their socks to cite NASA shit..........now suddenly its BS.


OK

Getting a bit out in left field there, Steve. Ground stations are not the responsibility of NASA.

Geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence support a solar-output model for climate change


Far too many variables out there Ray..........which is why the debate landscape has changed so dramatically in recent years.

 

[Old Rocks]

Just two variables when we go longer than a decade. Solar output, TSI, and the amount of heat retained by the atmosphere. Which is determined by the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. We have increased the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere, there has been a minor decrease in TSI, and we have seen several strong La Ninas this decade. The result? The warmest decade on record.

 

[Old Rocks]

The assumption here is that the CO2 will have no affect. Which, of course, has already been proven wrong.

Geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence support a solar-output model for climate change

The development and calibration of a solar-output model for climate are supported by geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence from the last full glacial Pleistocene (30,000 years BP) through the current Holocene interglacial to the present. The solar-output model is based on a superposition of a fundamental harmonic progression of cycles beginning at 10 and 12 years and progressing to the 13th harmonic (90,000-year cycle), which is approximately equal to the average continental glacial cycle. This model was date calibrated to the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary at 9,000 years BP and compared with geophysical records of sea level, carbon-14 production, oxygen 16/18 ratios, and other geologic evidence of climate fluctuations. The approximate 1,300-year little-ice-age cycle and intervening warmer periods agree with archaeological and historical evidence of these cold and warm periods. Throughout history, global warming has brought prosperity whereas global cooling has brought adversity.

The solar-output model allows speculation on global climatic variations in the next 10,000 years. Extrapolation of the solar-output model shows a return to little-ice-age conditions by A.D. 2400–2900 followed by a rapid return to altithermal conditions during the middle of the third millennium A.D. This altithermal period may be similar to the Holocene Maximum that began nearly 3,800 years ago. The solar output model suggests that, approximately 20,000 years after it began, the current interglacial period may come to an end and another glacial period may begin.

 

[kaz]

I'm not responding with hyperbole. Clearly I was right in my understanding of their beliefs as they proved with their posts.

Sorry bub, you're wrong on this one.

He said C02 is not a poison. You said oh, so you're saying you can pump unlimited amounts into the atmosphere with no consequence. Google the definition of the word hyperbole if you don't know what it means because you gave an excellent example of it.

 

[konradv]

That mini-Ice Age started yet? I want to get a round of golf in before it starts. They're predicting temps in the 60s today. Want to get to the links before that massive glacier.

 

[konradv]

The topic is global warming. You jump to believing that dumping pollutants in the air is bad proves there is global warming and not believing in global warming mean you believe pollution is OK.

CO2 isn't a pollutant, dipshit.

There was no jumping involved. Bripat clearly believes CO2 is not a pollutant and that we could therefore pump as much as we want into the atmosphere with no adverse affects.

it isn't a pollutant you idiot. without it plantlife would die. WE are all carbon based. Every lifeform.

What's next? Banning humans from the planet?

We'd also die without water, but all you have to do is go to NOLA to find out what happens when you get too much of a good thing. ARGUMENT FAIL!!!

 

[bripat9643]

There was no jumping involved. Bripat clearly believes CO2 is not a pollutant and that we could therefore pump as much as we want into the atmosphere with no adverse affects.

it isn't a pollutant you idiot. without it plantlife would die. WE are all carbon based. Every lifeform.

What's next? Banning humans from the planet?

We'd also die without water, but all you have to do is go to NOLA to find out what happens when you get too much of a good thing. ARGUMENT FAIL!!!

You didn't prove your point. No one would call water a pollutant.