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

[bripat9643]

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.

 

[bripat9643]

Bullshit! Last winter was "endlessly" wet but not all that cold. A lot of snow, but snow does not require record cold.

I don't know where you live, but the East coast was fucking freezing.

I live on the East Coast and it was below average last winter but nothing even close to record cold, just cold enough and wet enough to make a lot of snow.

National Temperature and Precipitation Maps[]=Nationaltrank&submitted=true#maps

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

 

[Annie]

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.

 

[edthecynic]

Time Mag Flashback: Man Made Global Cooling 1974

You deniers have been predicting "Global Cooling" since the 1970s, you'd think these fools would wise up by now!!!

actually it was people like Steven Schneider that were shouting doom in the 70's. until he found out there was a bigger audience for global warming, with the added benefit that it could be blamed on mankind.

for those that dont know S Schneider was a big CAGW alarmist until his untimely demise. a big favourite of the AGU who have a memorial lecture at all of their meetings that deals with CAGW

What you really mean is, unlike the fake scientists in the denier camps, he checked his work and found he had overestimated the cooling effect of aerosols, and underestimated the warming effect of CO2 by a factor of about three. He had mistakenly assumed that measurements of air particles he had taken near the source of pollution applied worldwide. He also found that much of the effect was due to natural aerosols which would not be affected by human activities, so the cooling effect of changes in industrial pollution would be much less than he had calculated. Having found that recalculation showed that global warming was the more likely outcome, he published a retraction of his earlier findings in 1974. Deniers never check their own work and never admit mistakes.

 

[edthecynic]

I don't know where you live, but the East coast was fucking freezing.

I live on the East Coast and it was below average last winter but nothing even close to record cold, just cold enough and wet enough to make a lot of snow.

National Temperature and Precipitation Maps[]=Nationaltrank&submitted=true#maps

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

None of witch are credible.

 

[whitehall]

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.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

 

[skookerasbil]

You deniers have been predicting "Global Cooling" since the 1970s, you'd think these fools would wise up by now!!!

actually it was people like Steven Schneider that were shouting doom in the 70's. until he found out there was a bigger audience for global warming, with the added benefit that it could be blamed on mankind.

for those that dont know S Schneider was a big CAGW alarmist until his untimely demise. a big favourite of the AGU who have a memorial lecture at all of their meetings that deals with CAGW

What you really mean is, unlike the fake scientists in the denier camps, he checked his work and found he had overestimated the cooling effect of aerosols, and underestimated the warming effect of CO2 by a factor of about three. He had mistakenly assumed that measurements of air particles he had taken near the source of pollution applied worldwide. He also found that much of the effect was due to natural aerosols which would not be affected by human activities, so the cooling effect of changes in industrial pollution would be much less than he had calculated. Having found that recalculation showed that global warming was the more likely outcome, he published a retraction of his earlier findings in 1974. Deniers never check their own work and never admit mistakes.

But the deniers are winning handily s0n..........its not even debatable anymore. If the alarmists were winning, there would be legislation coming out of Washington at breakneck speed. But whats coming out of Washington the last 3 years?????????

DICK


You alarmist bozo's dont get it despite trumpeting your own horns like Rhodes Scholars. Its at a laughable state at this point and getting worse by the day. Who was talking about a new ice age 5 years go? Nobody. Now......its regular talk at every water cooler in America. Indeed.......the worm has turned!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[uscitizen]

I have one daffodil blooming in my yard.

really!

And I live in central KY.

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[code1211]

Have any of the people trumpeting this article as evidence of global cooling read it? It reads in part:

Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’

In other words, the effect described in the article does not have a significant likelihood of dominating climate change. In order to provide balance and/or to justify their alarmist headline, the Daily Mail has quoted other scientists who feel differently. One of these scientists, who apparently couldn't point to any studies justifying his point of view, pointed out that models aren't perfect so there is a nonzero chance that there will be a sudden global cooling. I wouldn't hold my breath.

Does anything in the sentence highlighted in red strike you as at all nonsensical?

I have a feeling that if the level of CO2 were to to increase or decrease by 50%, the effects that we would feel would be somewhat less than if the level of the Sun's radiation were to increase or decrease by 50%.

Did I read what that sentence said correctly?

If yes, whoever wrote that is not in touch with reality.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

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.

 

[skookerasbil]

I have one daffodil blooming in my yard.

really!

And I live in central KY.

sweet..........

They need some sweet shit up north though, let me tell you..................

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner - Temperatures fall to 50 below in Fairbanks small air carriers cancel flights

 

[skookerasbil]

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.

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

 

[edthecynic]

Have any of the people trumpeting this article as evidence of global cooling read it? It reads in part:

Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’

In other words, the effect described in the article does not have a significant likelihood of dominating climate change. In order to provide balance and/or to justify their alarmist headline, the Daily Mail has quoted other scientists who feel differently. One of these scientists, who apparently couldn't point to any studies justifying his point of view, pointed out that models aren't perfect so there is a nonzero chance that there will be a sudden global cooling. I wouldn't hold my breath.

Does anything in the sentence highlighted in red strike you as at all nonsensical?

I have a feeling that if the level of CO2 were to to increase or decrease by 50%, the effects that we would feel would be somewhat less than if the level of the Sun's radiation were to increase or decrease by 50%.

Did I read what that sentence said correctly?

If yes, whoever wrote that is not in touch with reality.

Of course, that makes the moronic ASSumption that the sun and CO2 increase or decrease at the exact same proportions!

 

[code1211]

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?

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[skookerasbil]