Some scientists say it's going to be hot, some say cold

[westwall]

An interesting article from the Las Vegas Examiner. I wonder who will be correct? I know who I'm betting on!


Triple Crown of global cooling could pose serious threat to humanity

 

[syrenn]

LOL. So are what you are saying is we need to pump more Co2 into the air to prevent global cooling?

 

[SFC Ollie]

I give up, I think I'll just worry about what the weekend is going to be like..

 

[westwall]

LOL. So are what you are saying is we need to pump more Co2 into the air to prevent global cooling?

If it would work I would say yes but as CO2 has yet to be shown to affect anything I would say continue as you were.....just get a good food supply laid in!

 

[syrenn]

LOL. So are what you are saying is we need to pump more Co2 into the air to prevent global cooling?

If it would work I would say yes but as CO2 has yet to be shown to affect anything I would say continue as you were.....just get a good food supply laid in!

Trying to incite a riot?

 

[westwall]

LOL. So are what you are saying is we need to pump more Co2 into the air to prevent global cooling?

If it would work I would say yes but as CO2 has yet to be shown to affect anything I would say continue as you were.....just get a good food supply laid in!

Trying to incite a riot?

What? Who me????? Nope, not me!

 

[syrenn]

Trying to incite a riot?

What? Who me????? Nope, not me!

Your a riot! Trying to make me say the whole thing over in reverse are you? Because my model works both ways.

 

[Old Rocks]

In 2008, we had a strong and persistant La Nina, and a very low level of solar activity. Yet, 2008 was the 8th or 10th warmest year on record. Sounds to me like we are warming in spite of other variables that should have us cooling.

And that is the conclusion of the three papers just published by the National Academy of Sciences.

Triple Crown of global cooling could pose serious threat to humanity

In 2008, we experienced 265 days without a sunspot, the fourth-highest number of spotless days since continuous daily observations began in 1849. In 2009, the trend continued, with 261 spotless days, ranking it among the top five blank-sun years. Only 1878, 1901 and 1913 (the record-holder with 311 days) recorded more spotless days.

 

[edthecynic]

An interesting article from the Las Vegas Examiner. I wonder who will be correct? I know who I'm betting on!

Triple Crown of global cooling could pose serious threat to humanity
Why are sunspot numbers important? Very simple: there is a strong correlation between sunspot activity and global temperature.

WOW! Lie on top of BS on top of Lie on top of BS.

I pulled my favorite lie from the above link. There is absolutely no correlation between sunspots and temp as the below chart proves!
What a moron!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

Actually there is a minor coorelation between sunspots and temperture. You see, during periods of low sunspots, the total solar irradiance is very slightly lower.

 

[Tom Clancy]

Lol, the hockey stick graph?



Nice try.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

An interesting article from the Las Vegas Examiner. I wonder who will be correct? I know who I'm betting on!


Triple Crown of global cooling could pose serious threat to humanity

I love how the deniers base their arguments on a supposed global cooling scare in the 70's - and when it didn't work, they now try to create one now.

 

[gslack]

Interesting you mention this west. I have few facts that may give some clarity to this for our warmer crowd..

Most don't realize the original idea behind the theory of global cooling that was popular in the 70's actually came from Russian scientists studying orbital mechanics. And NOT from the study of CO2 in our atmosphere directly.

This is most interesting when we realize that CO2 increases throughout history have been an effect of warming much more than a cause of warming. The fact we have around an 800 year gap when the earth warms and then CO2 increases, led them to include CO2 or greenhouse gas studies. In fact the greatest year to year temperature drop in recorded data from NASA GISS happened in January 2008. Which is interesting because 2007 was supposed to be the all time low in polar ice coverage. The warmers love pull that out of their butts, because they attribute ice coverage to current temperature not taking into consideration it is more than likely related to precipitation and what happened the previous years as well.

The main thing of importance we laymen should keep in mind here is this comes from the study of ORBITAL MECHANICS... As in the Sun and our own position in the solar system, the galaxy, the universe relative to our selves. The fact the warmers like oldsocks immediately try and limit this factor to sunspots or Milankovic cycles, and ignore the actual study or reasoning shows their intentions. They deny orbital mechanics, the longer solar radiance factors and data, and even run under a false assumption a lowered sunspot activity means we are going to be warmer....

Many Astrophysicists and and others whom specialize in orbital mechanics and solar dynamics are quite sure as the suns sunspot activity and/or electro-magnetic field lowers, we are bombarded by much more cosmic rays. You see the sun not only warms us, but it also protects us from other outside cosmic radiation through its own electro-magnetic field.

But the warmers and their agenda driven scientists deny this or ignore it altogether. And this shows how much actual science they employ...

 

[Old Rocks]

Suckeeee...... you are so damned dumb.

We know the about the Milankovic Cycles. Not only that, we also know that according to the orbitual mechanics, we should be slowly descending toward an ice age. In fact, the temperatures of the Little Ice Age should be the norm now, not the rapidly rising tempreratures we are seeing.

 

[konradv]

IMHO, that article doesn't have anything to do with human generated CO2. Sure the earth goes through cycles. NO ONE disputes that. The controversy is that the deniers want to ignore our contribution to the greenhouse gas laod of the atmosphere or at least pretend it doesn't matter. We see it everyday from those who say "it hasn't been proved in a lab". As we know that's a TOTAL LIE. It's EASILY demonstrated in the lab. So, why should we even care about an article which pretends to discuss the issue, when in actuality its intent is to distract and confuse people regarding the real issues.

 

[Old Rocks]

Lol, the hockey stick graph?



Nice try.

So, another simpleton incapable of understanding the most simple of science joins the discussion. Why don't you nuts ever research before yapping?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646

"Array of evidence"
The report states: "The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world".

Most researchers would agree that while the original hockey stick can - and has - been improved in a number of ways, it was not far off the mark. Most later temperature reconstructions fall within the error bars of the original hockey stick. Some show far more variability leading up to the 20th century than the hockey stick, but none suggest that it has been warmer at any time in the past 1000 years than in the last part of the 20th century.

 

[Old Rocks]

IMHO, that article doesn't have anything to do with human generated CO2. Sure the earth goes through cycles. NO ONE disputes that. The controversy is that the deniers want to ignore our contribution to the greenhouse gas laod of the atmosphere or at least pretend it doesn't matter. We see it everyday from those who say "it hasn't been proved in a lab". As we know that's a TOTAL LIE. It's EASILY demonstrated in the lab. So, why should we even care about an article which pretends to discuss the issue, when in actuality its intent is to distract and confuse people regarding the real issues.

Yep. We have a train headed toward a washed out bridge, and these fools wish to discuss whether there is any rust on the tracks.

It has been proven that the primary driver of the rapid warming that we are seeing is the CO2 and other greenhouse gases that we have put into the atmosphere. The National Academy of Sciences just put out three papers on the issue of global warming, papers all should read.

 

[gslack]

Suckeeee...... you are so damned dumb.

We know the about the Milankovic Cycles. Not only that, we also know that according to the orbitual mechanics, we should be slowly descending toward an ice age. In fact, the temperatures of the Little Ice Age should be the norm now, not the rapidly rising tempreratures we are seeing.

Yeah dumazz just proved my point......

My post stated you guys use Milankovic cycles and short term sunspot activity to make your case. Ignoring all other factors like little idiots... And bingo! the little Warmer army of yours shows up and tries to bury the logical post under mountains of garbage, all trying to pretend my post said something different....

Well dickhead your dishonesty and bullshit will not wash today ..

 

[gslack]

Re-Post because the oldsocks sock army tried to bury it.....

Interesting you mention this west. I have few facts that may give some clarity to this for our warmer crowd..

Most don't realize the original idea behind the theory of global cooling that was popular in the 70's actually came from Russian scientists studying orbital mechanics. And NOT from the study of CO2 in our atmosphere directly.

This is most interesting when we realize that CO2 increases throughout history have been an effect of warming much more than a cause of warming. The fact we have around an 800 year gap when the earth warms and then CO2 increases, led them to include CO2 or greenhouse gas studies. In fact the greatest year to year temperature drop in recorded data from NASA GISS happened in January 2008. Which is interesting because 2007 was supposed to be the all time low in polar ice coverage. The warmers love pull that out of their butts, because they attribute ice coverage to current temperature not taking into consideration it is more than likely related to precipitation and what happened the previous years as well.

The main thing of importance we laymen should keep in mind here is this comes from the study of ORBITAL MECHANICS... As in the Sun and our own position in the solar system, the galaxy, the universe relative to our selves. The fact the warmers like oldsocks immediately try and limit this factor to sunspots or Milankovic cycles, and ignore the actual study or reasoning shows their intentions. They deny orbital mechanics, the longer solar radiance factors and data, and even run under a false assumption a lowered sunspot activity means we are going to be warmer....

Many Astrophysicists and and others whom specialize in orbital mechanics and solar dynamics are quite sure as the suns sunspot activity and/or electro-magnetic field lowers, we are bombarded by much more cosmic rays. You see the sun not only warms us, but it also protects us from other outside cosmic radiation through its own electro-magnetic field.

But the warmers and their agenda driven scientists deny this or ignore it altogether. And this shows how much actual science they employ...

 

[konradv]

Suckeeee...... you are so damned dumb.

We know the about the Milankovic Cycles. Not only that, we also know that according to the orbitual mechanics, we should be slowly descending toward an ice age. In fact, the temperatures of the Little Ice Age should be the norm now, not the rapidly rising tempreratures we are seeing.

Yeah dumazz just proved my point......

My post stated you guys use Milankovic cycles and short term sunspot activity to make your case. Ignoring all other factors like little idiots... And bingo! the little Warmer army of yours shows up and tries to bury the logical post under mountains of garbage, all trying to pretend my post said something different....

Well dickhead your dishonesty and bullshit will not wash today ..

You're LYING. You're the one that ignores other factors. Any good scientist would consider everything, which is why statistical "tricks" are needed to "hide the decline" from other sources and reveal that part that's the result of human activity. If you've noticed the "Global Cooling Hoaxers" have pointed out those words without putting them into context as "proof" that something fishy is going on. Well something is!!! What's fishy is the way they only tell part of the story in order to make political points, having lost the scientific one.