New Study Contradicts Man-made warming
- Thread starter Sinatra
- Start date
You can't counter to fact that CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.
All you have are insults.
How sad.
FactFinder
VIP Member
- Mar 1, 2009
- 2,689
- 208
- 83
The earth is refuting it. It has been cooling since 2001. Listen closely you will hear her and more importantly feel her. She's giving you the cold shoulder.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
The earth is refuting it. It has been cooling since 2001. Listen closely you will hear her and more importantly feel her. She's giving you the cold shoulder.
NASA - 2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year
2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year01.16.08 Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for EarthÂ’s second warmest year in a century.
Image right: Click this image for the "Earth's Temperature" Web video. Credit: NASA / Goddard Space Flight Center
"It is unlikely that 2008 will be a year with truly exceptional global mean temperature," said Hansen. "Barring a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature clearly exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next few years, at the time of the next El Nino, because of the background warming trend attributable to continuing increases of greenhouse gases."
The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.
Goddard Institute researchers used temperature data from weather stations on land, satellite measurements of sea ice temperature since 1982 and data from ships for earlier years.
Image right: This still from the animation presented shows the temperature anomalies that were present during 2007. Click image for enlargement. Click here for visualization Credit: NASA
The greatest warming in 2007 occurred in the Arctic, and neighboring high latitude regions. Global warming has a larger affect in polar areas, as the loss of snow and ice leads to more open water, which absorbs more sunlight and warmth. Snow and ice reflect sunlight; when they disappear, so too does their ability to deflect warming rays. The large Arctic warm anomaly of 2007 is consistent with observations of record low geographic extent of Arctic sea ice in September 2007
No matter how often you repeat a lie, it still will never become the truth.
- Thread starter
- #54
The earth is refuting it. It has been cooling since 2001. Listen closely you will hear her and more importantly feel her. She's giving you the cold shoulder.
NASA - 2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year
2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year01.16.08 Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth’s second warmest year in a century.
Image right: Click this image for the "Earth's Temperature" Web video. Credit: NASA / Goddard Space Flight Center
"It is unlikely that 2008 will be a year with truly exceptional global mean temperature," said Hansen. "Barring a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature clearly exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next few years, at the time of the next El Nino, because of the background warming trend attributable to continuing increases of greenhouse gases."
The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.
Goddard Institute researchers used temperature data from weather stations on land, satellite measurements of sea ice temperature since 1982 and data from ships for earlier years.
Image right: This still from the animation presented shows the temperature anomalies that were present during 2007. Click image for enlargement. Click here for visualization Credit: NASA
The greatest warming in 2007 occurred in the Arctic, and neighboring high latitude regions. Global warming has a larger affect in polar areas, as the loss of snow and ice leads to more open water, which absorbs more sunlight and warmth. Snow and ice reflect sunlight; when they disappear, so too does their ability to deflect warming rays. The large Arctic warm anomaly of 2007 is consistent with observations of record low geographic extent of Arctic sea ice in September 2007
No matter how often you repeat a lie, it still will never become the truth.
You are basing all of your assertions upon Hansen's NASA data estimates.
While far and away the best funded, the NASA projections have long been the most controversial within the scientific community (to say nothing of Hansen himself)
You are cherry-picking one controversial sourse that does not utilize the actual satellite data, and then, due to a lack of worldwide monitors, throws in estimates of surface temperatures. The United States has by far the greatest numbers of monitors, and as such, likely provides the most accurate surface temperature readings - when it was discovered Hansen was in error regarding the US numbers, which show a decline in temps during the last decade, he jumped to "worldwide" temperature estimates, which allow him to basically adjust the numbers to continue showing a warming trend. (that is exactly what he has done)
There is an abundance of information out there disputing Hansen and his NASA estimates - and one of the primary questions being leveled against him is why his not using the satelite data and incorporating them into his figures? Likely because this data does not corroborate the lie he has been spreading in the face of mounting evidence that all of his previous estimates have been proven incorrect. If enough people begin to question his legitimacy within the climate science community, his funding will dry up and Hansen will go down in history as a complete fraud - which might very well happen.
Read this most recent article - and make sure to also go to page two at the bottom where you will see a press report warning of melting icebergs, dying seals, unheard of warming in the Arctic, dissapearing ice, and loss of sea life.
The article is from the US Weather Bureau in 1922.
Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler? â€Â¢ The Register
This is why an increasing number of global warming proponents are now hedging their bets - the earth has not been cooperating with their previous estimates, so now you are seeing "studies" being released stating that the earth will likely cool for a decade or longer, before more global warming will kick back in. (Ahem - that is what the earth does, yes? It warms and cools in moderate fluctuations in 20-40 year cycles) This is out of an increasingly desperate hope to continue securing funding for their livelihoods.
The science of global warming is repeatedly being proven false - the change to the term climate change is increasingly being viewed with bemused and skeptical eyes by the public at large, and the earth has been cooling slightly during the last decade.
Doubt Is Cast Over Global Warming (from The Herald )
You see Old Rocks, you are the one repeating the lie. Two out of the three data sources show the earth's temperatures as stagnant or cooling over the last decade. Only Hansens continues to push the fabrication of an alarmingly warming earth. While satellite data shows March 2008 as average - Hansen declared it the warmest March in recorded history. This same satellite data shows earth's current temperatures at or below the 30-year average, while the Hansen manipulated NASA data continues to show a drastic upward trend. Hansen repeatedly alters his data, and it has been found that he lowers past temperatures while raising more current temperatures. Why is that?
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2964
Last edited:
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf
Recent oppositely directed trends in solar
climate forcings and the global mean surface
air temperature
BY MIKE LOCKWOOD
1,2,* AND CLAUS FRO¨ HLICH
3
1Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Oxfordshire OX11 0QX, UK
2Space Environment Physics Group, School of Physics and Astronomy,
University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
3Physikalisch–Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center,
7260 Davos Dorf, Switzerland
There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate
and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half
of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun
that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite
direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.
Keywords: solar variability and climate; solar–terrestrial physics;
anthropogenic climate change
A peer reviewed article from the proceeding of the Royal Society
Recent oppositely directed trends in solar
climate forcings and the global mean surface
air temperature
BY MIKE LOCKWOOD
1,2,* AND CLAUS FRO¨ HLICH
3
1Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Oxfordshire OX11 0QX, UK
2Space Environment Physics Group, School of Physics and Astronomy,
University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
3Physikalisch–Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center,
7260 Davos Dorf, Switzerland
There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate
and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half
of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun
that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite
direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.
Keywords: solar variability and climate; solar–terrestrial physics;
anthropogenic climate change
A peer reviewed article from the proceeding of the Royal Society
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Scientific consensus on global warming,m including the fact that we are still rapidly warming
Logicalscience.com - The Consensus On Global Warming/Climate Change: From Science to Industry & Religion
The Consensus on Global Warming:From Science to Industry & Religion
By: Logical Science
Climate change critics like Richard Lindzen try to say "There's no consensus on global warming." in the Wall Street Journal, in front of Congress, and many other places. This argument has also been made repeatedly on Fox News.1,2 Other researchers like Dean Dr. Mark H. Thiemens say this "has nothing to do with reality".1,2,3 The following is a list of quotes from scientific organizations, academies, scientists, industry spokesmen, etc supporting the existence of man made climate change and the need to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Many of these quotes reference the IPCC or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which is widely regarded by mainstream scientists as either the "most reliable" or one of the most reliable sources for accurate information on climate change. As you will notice, the evidence against the consensus critics like Lindzen and pundits on Fox News is overwhelming. If you are confused as to whose opinion matters, just pay attention to the peer review science journals and the National Academy of Sciences. For those that don't know, the National Academies are like the Supreme Court of science. The number of climate scientists in the US can be found by examining the members of the American Geophysical Union (AGU). As of November 10, 2006 we know that there is a minimum (no official count of foreign climatologists is available) of 20,000 working climatologists worldwide 1,2. An important fact to remember is that many high profile critics you see in the news do not qualify as climate scientists when these standards are applied. Keep both of these concepts in mind the next time you see a handful of self proclaiming "climate scientists" with dissenting opinions. It is also important to note that Exxon Mobil is funding a $10,000 bounty for climate denialists and skeptics. If only 2% of the 20,000 climatologists were bought out then we'd have 400 deniers (skeptics are convinced by science not money). If you have suggestions for the addition of other quotes please post them at our blog.
Index
International Statements
Individual Societies and Organizations
Peer Review Scientific Journals
Individual Scientists (including a 11,885+ long petition) Industry
Military
Religion
Administrative Officials
Mainstream Media
Politicians
International Statements
anchor
Below is a list of joint statements calling for action on mitigating climate change. The National Academies representing the 21 following countries and districts have signed joint statements:
Australia
Belgium
Brazil
Caribbean
Canada China
France
Germany
India
Indonesia Ireland
Italy
Japan
Malaysia
Mexico New Zealand
Russia
South Africa
Switzerland
United Kingdom United States
Logicalscience.com - The Consensus On Global Warming/Climate Change: From Science to Industry & Religion
The Consensus on Global Warming:From Science to Industry & Religion
By: Logical Science
Climate change critics like Richard Lindzen try to say "There's no consensus on global warming." in the Wall Street Journal, in front of Congress, and many other places. This argument has also been made repeatedly on Fox News.1,2 Other researchers like Dean Dr. Mark H. Thiemens say this "has nothing to do with reality".1,2,3 The following is a list of quotes from scientific organizations, academies, scientists, industry spokesmen, etc supporting the existence of man made climate change and the need to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Many of these quotes reference the IPCC or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which is widely regarded by mainstream scientists as either the "most reliable" or one of the most reliable sources for accurate information on climate change. As you will notice, the evidence against the consensus critics like Lindzen and pundits on Fox News is overwhelming. If you are confused as to whose opinion matters, just pay attention to the peer review science journals and the National Academy of Sciences. For those that don't know, the National Academies are like the Supreme Court of science. The number of climate scientists in the US can be found by examining the members of the American Geophysical Union (AGU). As of November 10, 2006 we know that there is a minimum (no official count of foreign climatologists is available) of 20,000 working climatologists worldwide 1,2. An important fact to remember is that many high profile critics you see in the news do not qualify as climate scientists when these standards are applied. Keep both of these concepts in mind the next time you see a handful of self proclaiming "climate scientists" with dissenting opinions. It is also important to note that Exxon Mobil is funding a $10,000 bounty for climate denialists and skeptics. If only 2% of the 20,000 climatologists were bought out then we'd have 400 deniers (skeptics are convinced by science not money). If you have suggestions for the addition of other quotes please post them at our blog.
Index
International Statements
Individual Societies and Organizations
Peer Review Scientific Journals
Individual Scientists (including a 11,885+ long petition) Industry
Military
Religion
Administrative Officials
Mainstream Media
Politicians
International Statements
anchor
Below is a list of joint statements calling for action on mitigating climate change. The National Academies representing the 21 following countries and districts have signed joint statements:
Australia
Belgium
Brazil
Caribbean
Canada China
France
Germany
India
Indonesia Ireland
Italy
Japan
Malaysia
Mexico New Zealand
Russia
South Africa
Switzerland
United Kingdom United States
- Thread starter
- #57
The earth is refuting it. It has been cooling since 2001. Listen closely you will hear her and more importantly feel her. She's giving you the cold shoulder.
NASA - 2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year
2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year01.16.08 Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for EarthÂ’s second warmest year in a century.
Image right: Click this image for the "Earth's Temperature" Web video. Credit: NASA / Goddard Space Flight Center
"It is unlikely that 2008 will be a year with truly exceptional global mean temperature," said Hansen. "Barring a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature clearly exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next few years, at the time of the next El Nino, because of the background warming trend attributable to continuing increases of greenhouse gases."
The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.
Goddard Institute researchers used temperature data from weather stations on land, satellite measurements of sea ice temperature since 1982 and data from ships for earlier years.
Image right: This still from the animation presented shows the temperature anomalies that were present during 2007. Click image for enlargement. Click here for visualization Credit: NASA
The greatest warming in 2007 occurred in the Arctic, and neighboring high latitude regions. Global warming has a larger affect in polar areas, as the loss of snow and ice leads to more open water, which absorbs more sunlight and warmth. Snow and ice reflect sunlight; when they disappear, so too does their ability to deflect warming rays. The large Arctic warm anomaly of 2007 is consistent with observations of record low geographic extent of Arctic sea ice in September 2007
No matter how often you repeat a lie, it still will never become the truth.
You are basing all of your assertions upon Hansen's NASA data estimates.
While far and away the best funded, the NASA projections have long been the most controversial within the scientific community (to say nothing of Hansen himself)
You are cherry-picking one controversial sourse that does not utilize the actual satellite data, and then, due to a lack of worldwide monitors, throws in estimates of surface temperatures. The United States has by far the greatest numbers of monitors, and as such, likely provides the most accurate surface temperature readings - when it was discovered Hansen was in error regarding the US numbers, which show a decline in temps during the last decade, he jumped to "worldwide" temperature estimates, which allow him to basically adjust the numbers to continue showing a warming trend. (that is exactly what he has done)
There is an abundance of information out there disputing Hansen and his NASA estimates - and one of the primary questions being leveled against him is why his not using the satelite data and incorporating them into his figures? Likely because this data does not corroborate the lie he has been spreading in the face of mounting evidence that all of his previous estimates have been proven incorrect. If enough people begin to question his legitimacy within the climate science community, his funding will dry up and Hansen will go down in history as a complete fraud - which might very well happen.
Read this most recent article - and make sure to also go to page two at the bottom where you will see a press report warning of melting icebergs, dying seals, unheard of warming in the Arctic, dissapearing ice, and loss of sea life.
The article is from the US Weather Bureau in 1922.
Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler? • The Register
This is why an increasing number of global warming proponents are now hedging their bets - the earth has not been cooperating with their previous estimates, so now you are seeing "studies" being released stating that the earth will likely cool for a decade or longer, before more global warming will kick back in. (Ahem - that is what the earth does, yes? It warms and cools in moderate fluctuations in 20-40 year cycles) This is out of an increasingly desperate hope to continue securing funding for their livelihoods.
The science of global warming is repeatedly being proven false - the change to the term climate change is increasingly being viewed with bemused and skeptical eyes by the public at large, and the earth has been cooling slightly during the last decade.
Doubt Is Cast Over Global Warming (from The Herald )
You see Old Rocks, you are the one repeating the lie. Two out of the three data sources show the earth's temperatures as stagnant or cooling over the last decade. Only Hansens continues to push the fabrication of an alarmingly warming earth. While satellite data shows March 2008 as average - Hansen declared it the warmest March in recorded history. This same satellite data shows earth's current temperatures at or below the 30-year average, while the Hansen manipulated NASA data continues to show a drastic upward trend. Hansen repeatedly alters his data, and it has been found that he lowers past temperatures while raising more current temperatures. Why is that?
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2964
None of what you attempt to say disputes the above Old Rocks.
You seem like a decent and intelligent enough person, but the current data supports the fact that the earth's temperature appears to have cooled for the last decade. It also supports the fact that the 1930s-1940s era was in fact warmer than even the 1990s when the global warming hysteria reached a zenith.
Please tell me this - why the altering of the name from global warming to climate change? Why would that change have taken place - made by those within the global warming industry? What was the motivation behind such a crucial change in name?
KittenKoder
Senior Member
Rockhead ... answer this one question:
Why are your scientists considered better than all the others who disagree with you?
Why are your scientists considered better than all the others who disagree with you?
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
You are basing all of your assertions upon Hansen's NASA data estimates.
While far and away the best funded, the NASA projections have long been the most controversial within the scientific community (to say nothing of Hansen himself)
You are cherry-picking one controversial sourse that does not utilize the actual satellite data, and then, due to a lack of worldwide monitors, throws in estimates of surface temperatures. The United States has by far the greatest numbers of monitors, and as such, likely provides the most accurate surface temperature readings - when it was discovered Hansen was in error regarding the US numbers, which show a decline in temps during the last decade, he jumped to "worldwide" temperature estimates, which allow him to basically adjust the numbers to continue showing a warming trend. (that is exactly what he has done)
There is an abundance of information out there disputing Hansen and his NASA estimates - and one of the primary questions being leveled against him is why his not using the satelite data and incorporating them into his figures? Likely because this data does not corroborate the lie he has been spreading in the face of mounting evidence that all of his previous estimates have been proven incorrect. If enough people begin to question his legitimacy within the climate science community, his funding will dry up and Hansen will go down in history as a complete fraud - which might very well happen.
Read this most recent article - and make sure to also go to page two at the bottom where you will see a press report warning of melting icebergs, dying seals, unheard of warming in the Arctic, dissapearing ice, and loss of sea life.
The article is from the US Weather Bureau in 1922.
Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler? • The Register
This is why an increasing number of global warming proponents are now hedging their bets - the earth has not been cooperating with their previous estimates, so now you are seeing "studies" being released stating that the earth will likely cool for a decade or longer, before more global warming will kick back in. (Ahem - that is what the earth does, yes? It warms and cools in moderate fluctuations in 20-40 year cycles) This is out of an increasingly desperate hope to continue securing funding for their livelihoods.
The science of global warming is repeatedly being proven false - the change to the term climate change is increasingly being viewed with bemused and skeptical eyes by the public at large, and the earth has been cooling slightly during the last decade.
Doubt Is Cast Over Global Warming (from The Herald )
You see Old Rocks, you are the one repeating the lie. Two out of the three data sources show the earth's temperatures as stagnant or cooling over the last decade. Only Hansens continues to push the fabrication of an alarmingly warming earth. While satellite data shows March 2008 as average - Hansen declared it the warmest March in recorded history. This same satellite data shows earth's current temperatures at or below the 30-year average, while the Hansen manipulated NASA data continues to show a drastic upward trend. Hansen repeatedly alters his data, and it has been found that he lowers past temperatures while raising more current temperatures. Why is that?
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2964
None of what you attempt to say disputes the above Old Rocks.
You seem like a decent and intelligent enough person, but the current data supports the fact that the earth's temperature appears to have cooled for the last decade. It also supports the fact that the 1930s-1940s era was in fact warmer than even the 1990s when the global warming hysteria reached a zenith.
Please tell me this - why the altering of the name from global warming to climate change? Why would that change have taken place - made by those within the global warming industry? What was the motivation behind such a crucial change in name?
No, it has no cooled for the last decade, nor were the '30s warmer than the '90s. Here is a graph of the analomies from NOAA
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/temp-anom-larg.jpg
Global warming is the overall warming of the atmosphere, ocean, and land. Climate change, which results from global warming is the significant change in weather patterns in geographical areas around the world. That is the effect we are seeing when 100 year floods start arriving every decade. When droughts that used to last 2 years last 5 or more years. And that is just the beginning.
Here is an article by the National Academia of Sciences that may clear up the nomentcleture for you;
Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Because the ratio is about one hundred to one in my favor. And far larger than that in the field of climatology.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
D. Trump: What caused the war to start was when they (Ukrainians) started talking about joining NATO
- Started by Dissident
- Replies: 2
-
Elizabeth Warren Called Jerome Powell ‘Dangerous.’ So Why Is She Defending Him Now?- Started by Dont Taz Me Bro
- Replies: 2
