People it is NOT COOLING

[ScienceRocks]

I swear to fucking god measuring from a super massive nino in 1998 to a huge nina in 2008 is NO GOOD WAY TO MEASURE GLOBAL TEMPERATURES. What you do more or less is find a neutral year like 1981,1990, 1995, or maybe 2003, but there is a damn good reason why you don't chose a warm or cool enso year.

Then draw the mother fucking line in between the low(cool years) and highs(warmer years). What this does is give you a trend of the normal conditions. That is what is changing my friends. A nina and nino over the course of the past 30 years have also changed. In the 1970s a nina would of given us around -.15 to -.1c within the giss, but today a year will be at least .3c within the deepest nina imaginable.

The attachment is me doing as I said above with choosing the favorable years that i point out and drilling a line through the means. Do you see any fucking cooling even through we're supposed to be cooling? I don't think so---Anyways, I may not be winning, but I'm surely right. O'hell even not winning, I will be laughing my ass off.

The second attachment is the future of humanity and our planet

 

[ScienceRocks]

Or better yet take away all the natural bull crap!

 

[wirebender]

No offense intended Matthew, but your posts make you out to be very fickle. Instead of swaying this way or that way depending on what you read in one place or another, take some time to learn the foundational basics of science. Learn the laws of physics and what they mean. Learn to apply them to the real world. Learn what is and what isn't. Then you won't have to be dragged in 14 different directions by as many people with as many different agendas.

You will know what is and isn't possible according to the laws of science and when you hear people making claims you can determine for yourself whether they are talking from a position of fact or fantasy.

The world may be warming. There would be nothing surprising in that as it has been on a general warming trend for 14,000 years now. The world may be cooling. There would be nothing surprising in that as it happens from time to time. The bottom line is that we are causing neither. The pseudo science that says we are doesn't fit within the constraints of the science that says we aren't.

You seem like a smart guy. Learn the foundational science and stop getting dragged around.

 

[skookerasbil]

meh

 

[Old Rocks]

Mathew is presenting real science instead of yap-yap, g-string.

When are you going to present a single Scientific Society, one National Academy of Science, or a major University that supports your point of view? You cannot, because there are none.

Yes, in geological time, the Earth has warmed and cooled a number of times. Sometimes with enormous consequences for life at that time. And, as in all of nature, there are reasons that it has done so.

A23A

 

[wirebender]

Mathew is presenting real science instead of yap-yap, g-string.

Name calling. I love it rocks. It represents the last refuge of someone who has nothing else.

When are you going to present a single Scientific Society, one National Academy of Science, or a major University that supports your point of view? You cannot, because there are none.

Since you don't know the first thing about scientific societies, I suppose your ignorance is forgivable. The political head of a scientific society is an entirely different thing from the scientific body of a scientific society. If you want to hold up scientific societies, try holding up the bodies, which represent working scientists, of the societies who by overwhelming majority, in all societies, don't go along with the hypothesis of agw.

Yes, in geological time, the Earth has warmed and cooled a number of times. Sometimes with enormous consequences for life at that time. And, as in all of nature, there are reasons that it has done so.

Since the time the present warming trend began rocks, doesn't really represent much in terms of geological time. 14K years is nothing in terms of geological time and since the warming began, there have been numerous periods in which global temperatures were warmer than the present; and colder. If you could point to something that is outside of, or even close to the limits of natural variability, even within the present interglacial, you might have something. But you can't. Nothing in the present represents anything even close to being outside of natural variability.

When you actually want to talk about the science rather than simply repeat your holy scripture, let me know rocks. Till then, it is clear that this topic is, to you, an article of faith.

 

[editec]

Seems warmer to me overall.

But then too my perspecitive is rather limited.

That's why I depend on the experts in the field.

Most of them seem to think the global climate is warming up.

They might be wrong, experts sometimes are, but their opinions about their field of study are certainly more likely to be correct than my own.

 

[martybegan]

Seems warmer to me overall.

But then too my perspecitive is rather limited.

That's why I depend on the experts in the field.

Most of them seem to think the global climate is warming up.

They might be wrong, experts sometimes are, but their opinions about their field of study are certainly more likely to be correct than my own.

I have nothing wrong with the scientists, my problem is with the politicians who's only remedy for AGW is massive governmental control of our economy and our personal lives. Add in the fact that in any of these schemes two of the larger polluters, China and India will tell us to pound sand, and I fail to see the reason we should cripple our economy if they do not.

The final nail in the coffin is that the one availible technology that is availible and could provide easy baseline power is also rejected by the most feverent AGW proponents. Yes fission power creates waste and must be heavily regulated, but at least the waste is compact per GW created, and managable.

AGW proponents could see the elimination of most of our coal plants if they would embrace nuclear power, but they do not.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Oh yes, we are warmering. Proof is here, folks .. . @ 1:10.

“Go out and say that there is no global climate change, and you know, I’m not gonna cite the anecdotal evidence. Just walk out the street and your glasses are gonna fog up today.”

Rep. Ackerman has just found evidence that air conditioning works, not that the world is getting warmer.

The PJ Tatler » Video: Dem. Rep. Gary Ackerman PROVES that Global Warming is Real!


tff

 

[Si modo]

Oh yes, we are warmering. Proof is here, folks .. . @ 1:10.

“Go out and say that there is no global climate change, and you know, I’m not gonna cite the anecdotal evidence. Just walk out the street and your glasses are gonna fog up today.”

Rep. Ackerman has just found evidence that air conditioning works, not that the world is getting warmer.

The PJ Tatler » Video: Dem. Rep. Gary Ackerman PROVES that Global Warming is Real!


tff

(Today is July 23.)

 

[xsited1]

 

[Big Fitz]

It's man's fault. It's always man's fault. But not just man's fault. It's white western civilization's fault.

Mad king Lud would be very proud of you people.

 

[Big Fitz]

In the southern hemisphere, the reverse of that graph is true.

 

[Bigfoot]

It's man's fault. It's always man's fault. But not just man's fault. It's white western civilization's fault.

Let me take this a bit farther if you don't mind Fitz...

It's western civilization's but only the patriotic right and moderates of western civilization, the left are all driving hybrids and riding bicycles because they care so much more then everyone else. God bless them! (Oo that's gotta hurt) Sorry for the good wishes there lefties.

 

[Bigfoot]

Based on the same time-honored, complex calculations it uses to predict weather, the Almanac hits the newsstands on Tuesday saying a study of solar activity and corresponding records on ocean temperatures and climate point to a cooler, not warmer, climate, for perhaps the next half century.

"We at the Almanac are among those who believe that sunspot cycles and their effects on oceans correlate with climate changes," writes meteorologist and climatologist Joseph D'Aleo. "Studying these and other factor suggests that cold, not warm, climate may be our future."

These predictions match those of Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, Merited Scientist of Russia and fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, remarkably well.

The latest data, obtained by Habibullah Abdusamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory space research laboratory, say that Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.

I think we can now say there is a consensus for Global Cooling. Although we can count on the deniers to persist.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, Big-Foot-in-Mouth, you will be reminded of your foolishness.

 

[konradv]

Based on the same time-honored, complex calculations it uses to predict weather, the Almanac hits the newsstands on Tuesday saying a study of solar activity and corresponding records on ocean temperatures and climate point to a cooler, not warmer, climate, for perhaps the next half century.

"We at the Almanac are among those who believe that sunspot cycles and their effects on oceans correlate with climate changes," writes meteorologist and climatologist Joseph D'Aleo. "Studying these and other factor suggests that cold, not warm, climate may be our future."

These predictions match those of Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, Merited Scientist of Russia and fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, remarkably well.

The latest data, obtained by Habibullah Abdusamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory space research laboratory, say that Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.

I think we can now say there is a consensus for Global Cooling. Although we can count on the deniers to persist.

That's just the natural cycle. What about increasing CO2 acting as an insulator to keep more heat in? Where's that coming from, if not from man? I'm afraid I'll fo with the science, rather than just accept on "faith" that we can't possibly be doing something to the climate of a planet as big as Earth.

 

[prudence12]

People are tensed. Too many personal and worldwide issues going on. Economy and Politics are not helping. We need God.

 

[wirebender]

That's just the natural cycle. What about increasing CO2 acting as an insulator to keep more heat in? Where's that coming from, if not from man? I'm afraid I'll fo with the science, rather than just accept on "faith" that we can't possibly be doing something to the climate of a planet as big as Earth.

Once again konradv, describe the mechanism by which CO2 keeps more heat in. A packet of energy leaving the surface of the earth, passing through CO2 takes about 0.0049 seconds to radiate into space. That same packet of energy radiating through water vapor takes 0.0245 seconds. Clearly water vapor does retain heat within the atmosphere. CO2, on the other hand, does not.

But hey, if you want to describe the mechanism and show your math, have at it.

 

[ScienceRocks]

That's just the natural cycle. What about increasing CO2 acting as an insulator to keep more heat in? Where's that coming from, if not from man? I'm afraid I'll fo with the science, rather than just accept on "faith" that we can't possibly be doing something to the climate of a planet as big as Earth.

Once again konradv, describe the mechanism by which CO2 keeps more heat in. A packet of energy leaving the surface of the earth, passing through CO2 takes about 0.0049 seconds to radiate into space. That same packet of energy radiating through water vapor takes 0.0245 seconds. Clearly water vapor does retain heat within the atmosphere. CO2, on the other hand, does not.

But hey, if you want to describe the mechanism and show your math, have at it.

Even if it retained heat it can't transport it back towards the surface. Vector going outwards in all directions means that it can't be transferred to another molecule of the same kind? Which means there is no such thing as the green house effect. It has been falsified and is a lie.