Global cooling or global warming?

[Ame®icano]

Forecasts of climate change are about to go seriously out of kilter. One of the world's top climate modellers said Thursday we could be about to enter "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool.

"People will say this is global warming disappearing," he told more than 1500 of the world's top climate scientists gathering in Geneva at the UN's World Climate Conference.

"I am not one of the sceptics," insisted Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, Germany. "However, we have to ask the nasty questions ourselves or other people will do it."

Few climate scientists go as far as Latif, an author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But more and more agree that the short-term prognosis for climate change is much less certain than once thought.

World's climate could cool first, warm later

 

[Ame®icano]

No....Because you're a stupid fuck, who won't accept a clinical scientific answer if it goes against your commie politics....Just like the envirocommie "scientists" who got outed today, for making shit up and destroying contrary evidence.

The arctic ice is melting and the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

That's called evidence.

Chris, since you believe that man is causing ice to melt, please explain how taxing countries is gonna stop that ice from melting?

Your desperation at the slow realization that you have been an overt proponent of what is a an obvious scam, is palpable. And funny...

 

[Screaming Eagle]

Why does it matter if Arctic ice melts anyway?

 

[The T]

No....Because you're a stupid fuck, who won't accept a clinical scientific answer if it goes against your commie politics....Just like the envirocommie "scientists" who got outed today, for making shit up and destroying contrary evidence.

The arctic ice is melting and the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

That's called evidence.

Chris, since you believe that man is causing ice to melt, please explain how taxing countries is gonna stop that ice from melting?

Your desperation at the slow realization that you have been an overt proponent of what is a an obvious scam, is palpable. And funny...

He cannot. Unless he cites every living creature upon the face of the Earth including himself that is suspect, but then CO2 is NOT proven to be a pollutant gas.

Without it? This Planet would surely DIE. (And he knows it).

 

[The T]

Why does it matter if Arctic ice melts anyway?

It is teorized by OwlGore that seas would rise, Land would disappear, and Hurricaines would be a YEAR-Round Event in BOTH Hemispheres...larger than Katrina...

 

[Screaming Eagle]

Why does it matter if Arctic ice melts anyway?

It is teorized by OwlGore that seas would rise, Land would disappear, and Hurricaines would be a YEAR-Round Event in BOTH Hemispheres...larger than Katrina...

It is the unanimous opinion of all scientists worldwide that the melting of Arctic sea ice would not cause a significant rise in ocean levels. Think of it this way if you fill a glass with ice and then with water and allow it to sit until all the ice melts, does your glass run over with excess water? Of course not. Arctic ice is not on a land mass.

If all of Greenland were to melt it could result in up to 20 feet of rise in the ocean levels. What sort of temperature increase would cause all of Greenland to melt? It would take about a 15C rise in temperature and probably several decades once it got there to melt all the ice. A 3C rise in temperature would probably lead to Greenland melting more than it snows every year. No sane person expects a 3C rise anytime in the next century or more. An 8C rise in temperature would probably cause a rise of a foot or two in ocean levels, at our current rate of temperature increase based on the last century it would take 1,600 years before we had that much increase in temperature and 600 years before we saw a 3c rise, so it isn't something to get all worked up about right now. In 200 years I think we should revisit the issue, until then who cares?

 

[edthecynic]

Why does it matter if Arctic ice melts anyway?

It is teorized by OwlGore that seas would rise, Land would disappear, and Hurricaines would be a YEAR-Round Event in BOTH Hemispheres...larger than Katrina...

It is the unanimous opinion of all scientists worldwide that the melting of Arctic sea ice would not cause a significant rise in ocean levels. Think of it this way if you fill a glass with ice and then with water and allow it to sit until all the ice melts, does your glass run over with excess water? Of course not.

BALONEY!

Think of it this way, if you fill a glass to the brim with water and then heat the water a couple of degrees, does your glass run over from expanding water? Of course it does!

 

[Screaming Eagle]

It is teorized by OwlGore that seas would rise, Land would disappear, and Hurricaines would be a YEAR-Round Event in BOTH Hemispheres...larger than Katrina...

It is the unanimous opinion of all scientists worldwide that the melting of Arctic sea ice would not cause a significant rise in ocean levels. Think of it this way if you fill a glass with ice and then with water and allow it to sit until all the ice melts, does your glass run over with excess water? Of course not.

BALONEY!

Think of it this way, if you fill a glass to the brim with water and then heat the water a couple of degrees, does your glass run over from expanding water? Of course it does!

You disagree with all the world's scientists? It's already in the ocean. Frozen water is already grossly expanded, thawing it makes it contract, which it continues to do until it reaches 4C and then it slowly starts to expand, but never reaches its volume as ice again. You've been terribly misinformed if you think arctic ice melting will cause an oceanic rise.

For melting ice to cause a rise in sea level it needs to be ice which is not in the sea, such as the ice on Greenland or Antarctica. Adding water to the ocean will cause it to rise, adding nothing will not cause it to rise.

 

[edthecynic]

It is the unanimous opinion of all scientists worldwide that the melting of Arctic sea ice would not cause a significant rise in ocean levels. Think of it this way if you fill a glass with ice and then with water and allow it to sit until all the ice melts, does your glass run over with excess water? Of course not.

BALONEY!

Think of it this way, if you fill a glass to the brim with water and then heat the water a couple of degrees, does your glass run over from expanding water? Of course it does!

You disagree with all the world's scientists? It's already in the ocean. Frozen water is already grossly expanded, thawing it makes it contract, which it continues to do until it reaches 4C and then it slowly starts to expand, but never reaches its volume as ice again. You've been terribly misinformed if you think arctic ice melting will cause an oceanic rise.

For melting ice to cause a rise in sea level it needs to be ice which is not in the sea, such as the ice on Greenland or Antarctica. Adding water to the ocean will cause it to rise, adding nothing will not cause it to rise.

None of the worlds scientists agree with you! They know that the same temperature increase that melts the ice also warms the oceans causing them to expand.

 

[Oddball]

An warmer oceans means more evaporation which leads to a stasis.

For someone who cites so much science, you're an incredibly one-dimensional linear thinker.

 

[edthecynic]

An warmer oceans means more evaporation which leads to a stasis.

For someone who cites so much science, you're an incredibly one-dimensional linear thinker.

More water vapor means more greenhouse effect.

 

[Oddball]

It also means more precipitation, which would have a cooling effect, especially in the forms of ice and snow. Likewise, more clouds would reflect more solar radiation, also having a cooling effect.

Keep going.....

 

[frazzledgear]

NO, the Earth has been cooling for a decade now, sorry. I know that is shitty news that no one wants to hear. Global warming would be good news, I think if there is anything we can do to foster global warming we should do it, for our children's sake.

True, we are cooling , even thought we are in warming cycle as shown in post #94.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that October in the US was marked by 63 record snowfalls and 115 lowest-ever temperatures.

Over the past few years, similar signs of colder than usual weather have been recorded all over the world, causing many people to question the still fashionable, but now long outdated, global warming alarmism. Yet individual weather events or spells, whether warmings or coolings, tell us nothing necessarily about true climate change.

Facts debunk global warming alarmism

Since the overall CO2 levels have risen, how then is this cooling possible? Unless there are forces that are expotentially more powerful that has vastly more effect on the climate. Even the one IPCC's climate modelers and Lead Author's is starting to about face rather than shipwreck his reputation.

The latest international scientist to advocate caution is German academic Mojib Latif, a climate modeller and a lead author to the last two reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He told a recent UN World Climate Conference that some of the warming in the last three decades was probably due to factors other than CO2 emissions and that, in the absence of any warming for a decade, it is now likely here will be ‘one or even two decades during which temperatures cool.

Treasury call signals time to cool off on ETS

It's obvious the dominos are starting to fall. Over the next year or couple of years, you'll see the IPCC scientists fleeing as the tide rises on their cockamamie theories. If they ever want to find work again, they will have to tell the truth.

No one should have ever paid any attention to anything the IPCC had to say in the first place. There are a couple of major problems with setting up a panel like this that was formed BECAUSE the members had already come to it with a preformed conclusion and refused to consider anything contradictory or didn't conform to it. And there has always been plenty that did. Too bad for the global warmers, but REAL science just doesn't work that way. To prove a theory is a scientific fact REQUIRES repeated attempts to prove it is wrong -and failing to do so under every possible condition. Scientific truth never requires a BELIEF in it as if a religion -it has been irrefutably PROVEN true. You can't prove it is true by ASSUMING it is true and ignoring that which contradicts it -which is exactly what global warmers demand be done. But until then, it will never be anything but an unproven theory. And despite what that lying ass Gore says, theories are NEVER "settled science". Of course they used the very same excuse those who politicize science always use. Doom-and-gloom is so imminent, we just don't have time for proper scientific testing and challenges.

Global warmers demanded that scientists STOP trying to prove it wrong -because they correctly suspected it WOULD be. And in fact demanded that any scientist who refused to stop challenging the theory be PUNISHED, that any company, business, college or university funded any research challenging the theory be punished as well. As a modern heretic to their demand to worship at the altar of global warming. When science is being politicized, those doing it demand it be accepted in its entirety, completely unchallenged, with absolutely no expression of doubt tolerated. How many times do we allow this same stunt to occur over and over again before we get what is really going on? Every time man has demanded that some scientific theory be treated as infallible, unchallengeable truth for either religious or political reasons -it meant our species stalled out on gaining any further significant scientific knowledge in that particular area for decades at a time. Gaining further knowledge cannot be built on a false and faulty foundation. We can only gain further knowledge by building only on that which is scientific truth.

The left immediately grabbed this theory and started manipulating it POLITICALLY for their purposes because it had two things they loved that made it perfect for their goals. First off it blamed MAN for the phony impending doom and the left tends to view our species as an unnatural, lethal parasite on earth whose very existence can only result in the demise of the planet entirely and cannot possibly be a species that is also part of nature and therefore NATURAL -so that confirmed their poor opinion of our species right off the bat. And best of all, it gave them enough leeway to claim that the only "cure" would be to impose financial ruin upon the wealthiest and most productive nations on earth and significantly lower their living standard. They continue to do so even now even after scientists have said it will have NO impact whatsoever. Why they find the idea of the US and others forced to hand over their wealth to those who didn't earn it is another post entirely but one we all know is true. These are the people who NEVER stop squealing how the US consumes something like 25% of the world's energy. A fact that taken entirely out of context can be used to bash the US and claim they are nothing but greedy bastards who must be stopped. So they NEVER mention that we use it to produce more than 50% of all the world's goods, ones that are of highly desirable quality and easily available all over the world at the cheapest prices to millions more than the next closest. Meaning we actually make far better, far more efficient, far less wasteful and far more productive use of that energy than any other nation on earth and billions on the planet benefit from it. If you have 100 trees and one person buys 25 of them and he builds 50 houses with them and 215 people buy the other 75 trees and build just 50 houses between them with those -does it really make a lot of sense to complain about the guy who bought 25 trees but produced as much by himself as the other 215 people combined did inefficiently and wastefully using three times as many trees? REALLY? Yeah let's screw with that, put a limit on the energy the US can buy so the world over all of mankind can really start enjoying a much more "fair" world where there are far fewer choices in goods that will be largely of poorer quality -but will ALL cost a hell of a lot more. Putting many more goods out of reach entirely for millions more people.

Since these global warmers are the same people most likely to pretend countries like the US are only wealthy because they stole it from poorer countries, they really love the idea that as part of their "cure" for global warming - countries like the US would be required to PAY CO2 offsets. They want to require the US to make a massive transfer of OUR wealth from those who created it here -and fork it over to other countries run by some corrupt, murdering thug so he can install some more gold-plated bathtub faucets in his newly built palace while his people continue to scratch the dirt for a living, their lack of economic and political freedoms unchanged. That way the global warmers get to pretend it makes the world more "fair" if there are more people "equally" suffering -while THEY get to assume that phony mantle of "nobility" and pose for cameras insisting it was all necessary to "save" the planet even though it will never do a damn thing to or for the planet whatsoever! It would only entrench power more firmly in select hands who believe in their "right" to rule over all others - and at the expense of the financial, political and economic freedoms of everyone else! Doesn't that just sound WONDERFUL and make you get all warm and gooey inside just thinking about it?

Politicizing science all too often has only massively increased human misery. Politicizing science led to the Nazi rationalization for the Holocaust, it led to the near total collapse of the former USSR's agricultural sector for more than two decades causing a sharp increase in both poverty and hunger for millions in the USSR, in the US one of many examples is the forced busing of innocent children miles from their home, forced to leave and arrive back home in the dark and sacrificing both play time and family time, forbidden from attending their neighborhood school with their friends -all so they could be forced to sit among strangers at a strange school in a strange city with no idea where they even were. All because a scientist theorized that black children could not effectively learn in school unless they were sitting next to a white kid who would then be an example to that black child how to properly learn. (Talk about revealing the true depths of that viperous, poisonous, soul-killing paternal racism inherent in liberal thought who insisted then it actually showed how "humane and caring" they were and got that policy foisted off on the country -all while also insisting that any parent who objected to their child being bused 100 miles away was just a racist if white -and just plain stupid if black and proof of why it must be done.) Politicizing science will never benefit mankind because it is only done when some group wants to use the power of government to FORCE people to do what they want (which by definition means they are always leftists since left wing ideology believes in using the power of the state to force people to do what they want) - and are simply using the EXCUSE of some scientific theory as justification for forcing people to forfeit more of their freedoms to the state all while they assume that phony mantle of "nobility" insisting they are only motivated by their "pure" desire to save mankind. Always from HIMSELF of course - because these are the people who really do believe that people in general are STUPID, incompetent and cannot be trusted to make wise decisions on their own behalf - and only they, the elite, possess the wisdom and intelligence to run it all for everyone else. And can get real pissy about it if rejected and people don't agree they should feel relief and meekly accept that no one is truly FREE until they have handed off that nasty burden of running your own life off to them with all that superior judgment.

Those guilty of constantly politicizing science NEVER do it for the purpose of increasing freedom, democracy and human rights. And NEVER WILL. It is only done in order to use the power of government to strip people of their political or economic freedoms while entrenching and solidifying their own power. The false religion of global warming is just one more example of how science is politicized in order to further a political goal -in this case, the massive redistribution of wealth on the global level while using the pretext of phony, politicized science to try and pull it off.

 

[edthecynic]

It also means more precipitation, which would have a cooling effect, especially in the forms of ice and snow. Likewise, more clouds would reflect more solar radiation, also having a cooling effect.

Keep going.....

"If the Earth had no atmosphere, a surface temperature far below freezing would produce enough emitted radiation to balance the absorbed solar energy. But the atmosphere warms the planet and makes Earth more livable. Clear air is largely transparent to incoming shortwave solar radiation and, hence, transmits it to the Earth's surface. However, a significant fraction of the longwave radiation emitted by the surface is absorbed by trace gases in the air. This heats the air and causes it to radiate energy both out to space and back toward the Earth's surface. The energy emitted back to the surface causes it to heat up more, which then results in greater emission from the surface. This heating effect of air on the surface, called the atmospheric greenhouse effect, is due mainly to water vapor in the air, but also is enhanced by carbon dioxide, methane, and other infrared-absorbing trace gases."

 

[Oddball]

You cut class the day they taught that white reflects heat and radiation, didn't you?

 

[Chris]

Why is the arctic ice is melting even though the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years?

 

[Oddball]

Because you're boring the ice to the point of suicide.

 

[edthecynic]

You cut class the day they taught that white reflects heat and radiation, didn't you?

And you cut class the day they taught that whether radiation passing through clouds warms or cools depends on its wavelength.

Longwave rays emitted by the Earth are absorbed and reemitted by a cloud, with some rays going to the surface. Thicker arrows indicate more energy. The resulting "cloud greenhouse forcing," taken by itself, tends to cause a warming of the Earth.

The shortwave rays from the Sun are scattered in a cloud. Many of the rays return to space. The resulting "cloud albedo forcing," taken by itself, tends to cause a cooling of the Earth.

 

[frazzledgear]

It also means more precipitation, which would have a cooling effect, especially in the forms of ice and snow. Likewise, more clouds would reflect more solar radiation, also having a cooling effect.

Keep going.....

"If the Earth had no atmosphere, a surface temperature far below freezing would produce enough emitted radiation to balance the absorbed solar energy. But the atmosphere warms the planet and makes Earth more livable. Clear air is largely transparent to incoming shortwave solar radiation and, hence, transmits it to the Earth's surface. However, a significant fraction of the longwave radiation emitted by the surface is absorbed by trace gases in the air. This heats the air and causes it to radiate energy both out to space and back toward the Earth's surface. The energy emitted back to the surface causes it to heat up more, which then results in greater emission from the surface. This heating effect of air on the surface, called the atmospheric greenhouse effect, is due mainly to water vapor in the air, but also is enhanced by carbon dioxide, methane, and other infrared-absorbing trace gases."

Have you really never researched the quotes you use in your signature to make sure you fully understand the context in which they were said? ROFL Because it sure makes you look like a real dufus.

For example, the ones from Limbaugh. What a hoot that you use those as part of your signature as if some kind of "proof" of how evil conservatives are.

But the one about "accuse your opponents of what you yourself are doing" is something Limbaugh said (and still says) DEMOCRATS do who have taken the play from the leftist radical Saul Alinski about how to get one up on your opponent. He said the Democrats DO THIS. It was not a statement advising conservatives what to do. ROFLMAO. But hey -why let a little thing like CONTEXT get in your way now, right? Just like the one you have quoting Limbaugh saying "Don't doubt me". Want to take a guess what he was actually talking about with that one? Prior to the recent elections, Limbaugh predicted that Democrats would lose both governor races -which they did -while claiming a moral victory. Which they also did. Limbaugh responded by saying "Don't doubt me WHEN I SAY THEY WILL CLAIM MORAL VICTORY EVEN IN THE FACE OF UTTER DEFEAT. But hey, leaving out the rest of what he said doesn't work out for you so well, does it? LOL Now want to take a shot about who Limbaugh was actually referring to about having a Messianic complex? Oops

And the really funny thing is I don't listen to Limbaugh -but just reading those bs quotes in your signature I knew something had to be missing from them. It took all of 45 seconds to find out what it was.

 

[Oddball]

Gee...You'd think all the millinea of the sun shining othe Earf like that and trapping all that heat, we'd be, like, a kiln by now.

But we're not because the ecosystem isn't linear, it's dynamic.