What happens if this turns out to be a natural pattern?

[SSDD]

Read Hansen's comments on the Faustian bargain.

I just blew my bisque out of my nose. Are you seriously saying that anyone and I mean ANYONE takes anything that hansen has to say seriously any more. The man has failed more times than anyone can reasonably be expected to count.

 

[SSDD]

Crap. No warming for the past 16 years? Have you ever been able to read a simple graph?

UAH v5.5 Global Temp Update for October 2012: +0.33 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Yep, I can read a graph and I also know bullshit when I see it. There has been no warming on a global scale for the past 16 years.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Why is .14c a big deal? Well, because the 1990's were warming at .18 to .2c.

Most of this warming happened from 2000 to 2005.

Read Hansen's comments on the Faustian bargain. China and India as well as other third world nations seeking to become second world nations, are releasing tremendous amounts of aerosols into the atmosphere. This reflects a good deal of the incoming solar radiation, and, when that ceases to be the case, the rise will reflect the increase in GHGs.

Even with this masking effect, and the lower TSI of recent years, the sensitivity to the warming seems to be far greater than previously thought. Both the observed increase in extreme weather events and the melting of the alpine glaciers and Arctic Sea Ice are far ahead of anyone's expectations.;

If Hansen is right and we do have 3-4c of warming by 2100. No amount of cutting emissions is going to save us now. I'd build a sea wall around new york, etc. Build on higher ground might be a good idea no matter what.

Invest heavily into GMO plants.

 

[bripat9643]

Let's say 10 years from now the temperatures are going down and we come to the conclusion that it was bull shit all along???

What will you say.

The warmist cult members will just pretend that it never happened and that they certainly didn't believe in the nonsense. The media will never say a thing about it. It will be as if history was reinvented the same way they used to do it in the Soviet Union.

 

[bripat9643]

Let's say 10 years from now the temperatures are going down and we come to the conclusion that it was bull shit all along???

What will you say.

What will you say if the ice cap is gone, the sea has risen a dozen meters and a billion people have been displaced? I suspect I know what you would say, "**** those people, close our borders and put another polar bear steak on the grill".

I would say, "time to wake up. Got to stop watching those ridiculous 2000s science fiction movies."

 

[bripat9643]

A simple experiment..

The guy doing the experiment is a con man. The reaction that takes place when you drop Alka Seltzer in water is exothermic. That means it gives off heat.

Any high school chemistry student should have been able to see right through it, but you fell for it.

 

[AlexWA]

Let's say 10 years from now the temperatures are going down and we come to the conclusion that it was bull shit all along???

What will you say.

It won't but let's go by what you are saying for a moment and it did...well then at that point it still wouldn't matter all that much because across the planet we will still be polluting every thing around us, we will still be destroying habitats, we will still be killing wildlife and plants, we will continue to overpopulate and decrease natural resources for all living beings, and we still continue on as if we can do whatever we want to whatever we want. Until people start living differently we will still be slowly destroying this planet regardless if it is cold or hot. It's the sad truth, and unfortunately it will still probably take a major crisis for people to realize that human beings and our never ending desire to want and use is still the problem.

 

[SSDD]

It won't but let's go by what you are saying for a moment and it did...well then at that point it still wouldn't matter all that much because across the planet we will still be polluting every thing around us, we will still be destroying habitats, we will still be killing wildlife and plants, we will continue to overpopulate and decrease natural resources for all living beings, and we still continue on as if we can do whatever we want to whatever we want. Until people start living differently we will still be slowly destroying this planet regardless if it is cold or hot. It's the sad truth, and unfortunately it will still probably take a major crisis for people to realize that human beings and our never ending desire to want and use is still the problem.

Have you considered the actual good that could have been done for the environment with the billions that have been flushed down the drain on climate pseudoscience. All that money has been wasted and there will never be a return on it and it has all been spent on the promotion of a hoax. There are some genuine environmental problems out there on which all that money, or even some of it could have been put to good use.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The best thing humanity could do is tap the resources of space. Limitless and once we do we won't rely as much on earth.

Win, win and more win. I'm for cleaner air, water and recycling.

 

[SSDD]

The best thing humanity could do is tap the resources of space. Limitless and once we do we won't rely as much on earth.

Win, win and more win. I'm for cleaner air, water and recycling.

Prior to the climate change hoax, NASA was one of two government programs that were actually worth the money spent on them. The climate hoax has reduced NASA to nothing more than a laughing stock.

 

[idb]

The best thing humanity could do is tap the resources of space. Limitless and once we do we won't rely as much on earth.

Win, win and more win. I'm for cleaner air, water and recycling.

Prior to the climate change hoax, NASA was one of two government programs that were actually worth the money spent on them. The climate hoax has reduced NASA to nothing more than a laughing stock.

Why are they a laughing stock?

 

[TNHarley]

The best thing humanity could do is tap the resources of space. Limitless and once we do we won't rely as much on earth.

Win, win and more win. I'm for cleaner air, water and recycling.

Prior to the climate change hoax, NASA was one of two government programs that were actually worth the money spent on them. The climate hoax has reduced NASA to nothing more than a laughing stock.

Why are they a laughing stock?

No one respects them anymore. Especially our gov't. Cutting them out like that... We would not be near as advanced as we are without them! At someone privatized space exploration.

 

[idb]

Prior to the climate change hoax, NASA was one of two government programs that were actually worth the money spent on them. The climate hoax has reduced NASA to nothing more than a laughing stock.

Why are they a laughing stock?

No one respects them anymore. Especially our gov't. Cutting them out like that... We would not be near as advanced as we are without them! At someone privatized space exploration.

No-one can laugh at their Mars program!

You're right, they did show the way into space, but isn't it time to let private firms use that knowledge now while they push onto greater projects...like Mars?

 

[westwall]

The best thing humanity could do is tap the resources of space. Limitless and once we do we won't rely as much on earth.

Win, win and more win. I'm for cleaner air, water and recycling.

Prior to the climate change hoax, NASA was one of two government programs that were actually worth the money spent on them. The climate hoax has reduced NASA to nothing more than a laughing stock.

Why are they a laughing stock?

Since they threw their lot in with Hansen and GISS the whole organisation has been painted with the same brush as that fool. Which is a shame because their space exploration side is exceptional.

 

[westwall]

Let's say 10 years from now the temperatures are going down and we come to the conclusion that it was bull shit all along???

What will you say.

It won't but let's go by what you are saying for a moment and it did...well then at that point it still wouldn't matter all that much because across the planet we will still be polluting every thing around us, we will still be destroying habitats, we will still be killing wildlife and plants, we will continue to overpopulate and decrease natural resources for all living beings, and we still continue on as if we can do whatever we want to whatever we want. Until people start living differently we will still be slowly destroying this planet regardless if it is cold or hot. It's the sad truth, and unfortunately it will still probably take a major crisis for people to realize that human beings and our never ending desire to want and use is still the problem.

Why is the use of natural resources bad? They are there for a reason. Mans future survival is not based on this planet, it is based on expanding into the solar system and then the stars. If man is stuck on this world we will be wiped out by the next big asteroid strike.

This is the first time that any form of life has had the chance to get away from that absolutely certain doom. Wasting time and money on the global warming fraud has cost us very dearly in money and time....time that we can't afford.

 

[polarbear]

A simple experiment..

The guy doing the experiment is a con man. The reaction that takes place when you drop Alka Seltzer in water is exothermic. That means it gives off heat.

Any high school chemistry student should have been able to see right through it, but you fell for it.

There is more than one problem with this experiment. Sure, when Bicarbonate and Citric acid react it`s slightly exothermic but that heat energy is not converted into an elevated temperature and is used when the CO2 expands in the bottle...and then the problems start which make pure nonsense of the comparison what goes on in a rubber stoppered bottle containing at the least a lethal CO2 concentration if not > 90 % CO2 irradiated with a heat lamp which is at least 100 Watts if not more from a distance of what did he say,...40 cm..
It`s no problem whatsoever to get rid of all the CO2 in a rubber stoppered bottle. All You have to do is add a bit of lime or caustic soda, shake it and You have air with no CO2 in this bottle.
Then You take a second bottle with an equal amount of water, no CO2 trapping chemical and above it air with ~ 380 ppm CO2.
There is a reason why nobody does an experiment like that and instead uses 800 000 ppm CO2 or more.
Several things happen which don`t happen with less than 1000 ppm CO2.
The refractive index of the concentrated CO2 gas is much higher and with the curved bottle surface You get a lens effect.
Concentrated CO2 has a much lower specific heat than air.
CO2 has at room temperature a CP of only 0.85 kJ/kg-K while air has 1.006 KJ/kg-K...so it takes 15 % less heat energy to heat up an equal mass of concentrated CO2 gas than an equal mass of air...and the difference between just air and air with 380 ppm CO2 would not even register..!!!!
The other even larger problem is that any gas that absorbs heat ENERGY only heats up (in terms of Temperature) if You don`t let it freely expand.
There is no way any gas in an open system like the air outside heats up at the same rate with the same amount of radiant heat ENERGY as it does in a closed system like a bottle with a rubber stopper.
Last not least, would that heat lamp which is supposed to represent the sun still "heat" the CO2 in that bottle if it would have to shine through a path with enough CO2 to absorb all the energy that CO2 can absorb to begin with..??...as the sun has to on the down path through the entire atmosphere. But as soon as You point out that "little discrepancy" between the real thing and silly midway magician experiments like that the believers switch the topic to "black body radiation" and "back radiation"...in which the air above which is colder than the "black body" manages to heat the "black body" to an even higher temperature.
So first let`s see an ACTUAL experiment (not just Roy Spencer`s "thought experiment" which demonstrates just that.
There is no way that this "back radiation" with which CO2 allegedly bombards our planet with "extra heat" can make up for the entire amount of heat energy the CO2 at high altitude strips from the incoming sunlight.

None of that is taken into account in any of these "experiments" designed to scare school kids and house wives with stoppered coke bottles full of concentrated CO2 directly in front of a heat lamp powerful enough to roast chickens...

That guy with his heat lamp and 2 rubber stoppered coke bottles in which he dropped a pile of Alka Seltzer tabs should be confronted with his own "evidence" that supposedly proved man made global warming...:

Any of the graphs they brandish show temperature in a direct, therefore linear relation with ppm CO2.
He had at the least 800 000 ppm CO2 in that bottle and recorded an 8.9 deg C temperature increase with his chicken roaster heat lamp.
That`s 8.9 / 800 000 = 0.000011125 deg C per ppm CO2 or according to this "experiment" accounts for 0.0042275 deg C on the above "man made global warming" graph.
And if he argues that the temperature increase for 800 000 ppm is dis-proportional to the 380 ppm "global warming evidence" graph,...then why the **** is he making a video with a corked bottle of concentrated CO2 instead of a bottle with 380 ppm and another one with either 0 or just half, 190 ppm CO2.
I`ld even let him use his chicken roaster lamp directly in front of the bottles again..and even be magnanimous about the rubber stoppers

It`s no trouble at all to do a real "green house" experiment doubling the CO2 concentration, but I would insist that there is no roof on the green house...then again that has been tried out already but nobody wants to talk about it,...because inside the walls it did not get any warmer than outside.

And by the way all the extinction level events we know of were a result of global cooling...not global warming
You don`t even have to go to that extreme. Just look at which regions have the highest population, man beast or plant, no matter which they all thrive in the warmer regions. And in the not so distant past Greenland was one of these regions.

 

[Rozman]

Let's say 10 years from now the temperatures are going down and we come to the conclusion that it was bull shit all along???

What will you say.

They will say that it's part of climate change and they were right all along.
Because everyone knows Democrats are just smarter then everyone.
And better.