Is Gobal Cooling a Continuing Threat?

[HempKat]

Why resign if not guilty?

Well let me see...

He might have felt he had proved all that was necessary and wanted to do something else with his life.

He might have felt it wasn't worth being thrown into the limelight as a deciever and resigned in indignation.

He might have got a more lucrative offer to do something else.

He might have wanted to spend more time with his family.

I could go on with possibilities but it's just speculation, just like your belief that he resigned in disgrace. Speculation proves nothing.

What I find interesting about this topic is that whether Global Warming is real or not, whether it's Man's fault or not seems rather irrelevent. The fact of the matter is there are climate changes taking place, weather patterns are changing and polar ice is melting at much faster then expected rates. These things are not in dispute, just what is causing them is being disputed. Cap and trade isn't going to fix it and nothing anyone is doing now is going to fix it because not enough nations are doing enough. What people really need to be focusing on is what are they going to do in response to the effects of this very real climate change regardless of whether it's man made or part of a natural cycle?

 

[In~Plain~Site]

Had you bothered reading it you'd know.. yup, irrefutable science.
but since that makes you laugh...
Well... should be easy peasy for you to refute it then, smarty pants... Is there an emote for that?



If you wanna play real evidence scientific type debate, I'll play... I've got piles of evidence you can in no way refute, and I can refute anything pertinent you present in an attempt to discredit evidence of agw. Just say go.

Found the problem... your science teacher is a comedian. (and not even funny)

Damn, butthurt much?

Think of Miller the way the left does Colbert or Stewart.
Stalwarts parading around under the guise of 'comedy'

I know it's tough to fathom that some may dissagree with you, figured you'd be use to it by this point in your life,if not by kindergarten graduation when most come to that realization.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone blow more smoke up their own ass than you.

 

[SilverSurfer_OG]

Well i hope you true believers sign up for your carbon ration card first so as to lead the way and show us simpletons the way forward

Dont forget to implement a one-child policy. If you have already made the unfortunate environmental error of having more than one child its ok... you just have to find someone from a lower socio-economic background and buy their child provision from them a la Ted Turner.

Dont you just love the wisdom of eugenics?

Head mate you have skeptical science i have watts up with that.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Damn, butthurt much?

Think of Miller the way the left does Colbert or Stewart.
Stalwarts parading around under the guise of 'comedy'

I know it's tough to fathom that some may dissagree with you, figured you'd be use to it by this point in your life,if not by kindergarten graduation when most come to that realization.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone blow more smoke up their own ass than you.

So, the answer is:

No you cannot refute anything.

And no, you don't have anything to say.

Thanks for playing.





You are all entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
If your opinions do not line up with the verifiable facts, then you've got smoke between your ears, and your head up your ass.



Stewart and Colbert are actually funny... Dennis Miller can't even carry his own weight commentating on Monday Night Football.... rofl.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Well i hope you true believers sign up for your carbon ration card first so as to lead the way and show us simpletons the way forward

Dont forget to implement a one-child policy. If you have already made the unfortunate environmental error of having more than one child its ok... you just have to find someone from a lower socio-economic background and buy their child provision from them a la Ted Turner.

Dont you just love the wisdom of eugenics?

Head mate you have skeptical science i have watts up with that.

So... you still stubbornly refuse to educate yourself. Guess you really are that scared of the truth...
And... then you push lies about people with insinuations that believing the verifiable science = pushing carbon credit political bullshit... Which it does not.

Just because we refuse to hide our head in the comforting sands of ignorance, does not mean we support any particular political solutions. I'm in no way whatsoever pushing politics... just verifiable evidence. The proof of global warming being, and being caused by mankind's CO2 emissions is there. It is verifiable and irrefutable.


I have verifiable science, you have rhetoric.

If you can't be bothered to educate yourself, I'm done trying to discuss anything with you. Stay confused and undereducated, if you like.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Wake up. Open your eyes. Use your critical thinking skills.

Contrary to what you may have heard, the case for man-made global warming doesn't hang on models or theory - it's built on direct measurements of many different parts of the climate, all pointing to a single, coherent answer.

10 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable

A common theme expressed at Skeptical Science is that to understand climate, you need to look at the full body of evidence. To help people assess the evidence, NOAA have just published State of the Climate 2009. The report defines 10 measurable planet-wide features used to gauge global temperature changes. All of these indicators are moving in the direction of a warming planet.

Seven indicators are rising: air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, air temperature over oceans, sea level, ocean heat, humidity and tropospheric temperature in the “active-weather” layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth’s surface. Three indicators are declining: Arctic sea ice, glaciers and spring snow cover in the Northern hemisphere. Jane Lubchenco sums it up well:

"For the first time, and in a single compelling comparison, the analysis brings together multiple observational records from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean. The records come from many institutions worldwide. They use data collected from diverse sources, including satellites, weather balloons, weather stations, ships, buoys and field surveys. These independently produced lines of evidence all point to the same conclusion: our planet is warming."

10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change

The NOAA State of the Climate 2009 report is an excellent summary of the many lines of evidence that global warming is happening. Acknowledging the fact that the planet is warming leads to the all important question - what's causing global warming? To answer this, here is a summary of the empirical evidence that answer this question. Many different observations find a distinct human fingerprint on climate change:


1.Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (CDIAC). Of course, it could be coincidence that CO2 levels are rising so sharply at the same time so let's look at more evidence that we're responsible for the rise in CO2 levels.

2.When we measure the type of carbon accumulating in the atmosphere, we observe more of the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Manning 2006).

3.This is corroborated by measurements of oxygen in the atmosphere. Oxygen levels are falling in line with the amount of carbon dioxide rising, just as you'd expect from fossil fuel burning which takes oxygen out of the air to create carbon dioxide (Manning 2006).

4.Further independent evidence that humans are raising CO2 levels comes from measurements of carbon found in coral records going back several centuries. These find a recent sharp rise in the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Pelejero 2005).

5.So we know humans are raising CO2 levels. What's the effect? Satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". (Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).

6.If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth's surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation (Philipona 2004, Wang 2009). A closer look at the downward radiation finds more heat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leading to the conclusion that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming." (Evans 2006).

7.If an increased greenhouse effect is causing global warming, we should see certain patterns in the
warming. For example, the planet should warm faster at night than during the day. This is indeed being observed (Braganza 2004, Alexander 2006).

8.Another distinctive pattern of greenhouse warming is cooling in the upper atmosphere, otherwise known as the stratosphere. This is exactly what's happening (Jones 2003).

9.With the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) warming and the upper atmosphere (the stratophere) cooling, another consequence is the boundary between the troposphere and stratophere, otherwise known as the tropopause, should rise as a consequence of greenhouse warming. This has been observed (Santer 2003).

10.An even higher layer of the atmosphere, the ionosphere, is expected to cool and contract in response to greenhouse warming. This has been observed by satellites (Laštovi?ka 2006).


Science isn't a house of cards, ready to topple if you remove one line of evidence. Instead, it's like a jigsaw puzzle. As the body of evidence builds, we get a clearer picture of what's driving our climate. We now have many lines of evidence all pointing to a single, consistent answer - the main driver of global warming is rising carbon dioxide levels from our fossil fuel burning.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Or read this article, which presents enough evidence for the closing paragraph to read "So we see a direct line of evidence that we're causing global warming. Human CO2 emissions far outstrip the rise in CO2 levels. The enhanced greenhouse effect is confirmed by satellite and surface measurements. The planet's energy imbalance is confirmed by summations of the planet's total heat content and ocean heat measurements."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

 

[Ben Tokin]

Hey guys, the main point of this thread was to help people understand the weather conditions on the island. Gypsy's services are dependent on the Royal Mail, and cold and snowy conditions have been hampering business.

On the climatolgy concerns all I have to say is, "Don't worry, be happy!"

Fire up a phatty and sit by the fire. Enjoy life and don't allow others to make life more difficult that it already is.

G'day all!

 

[Scout]

Wow, I feel a bit confused because I believe that there is truth to AGW and also believe in the evil that is(was) carbon taxing/credits(it all gets passed to the consumer anyway because investors require profitability therefore further squeezing the have-nots). I do not understand how people can dismiss the possibilities and repurcussions of human's ability to influence our climate(negatively or positively, it's all relative to ones placement in space and time I suppose), especially on the scale over the past 50-60 years. It seems those who totally dismiss the science have had their behavioral patterns and beliefs heavily conditioned by the ethos of multinational corporations and their propaganda shills in advertising and government. Corporate propaganda preys heavily on our sinister nature so no surprise there regarding our current state of affairs and lack of beliefs regarding any necessary stewardship of the planet.

The climate where I'm located (southeast) has been weird the past two years to say the least. We've had two snow events(09-10) with snow accumulation greater than 6" in an area that might receive a dusting every five years. For about three weeks in January, we never made it out of the 30s for highs. Then the summer is blazing hot(mid-upper 90s most of the summer). It seems things are just becoming more erratic with wild swings away from "normal" possibly due to the sun's activity and its effects on the ocean temperature and currents which affects the jet streams and so on. Climate is changing yet the earth needs some sort of stasis over the long term. Time will tell....

So I was way off on the cooling timeline I mentioned earlier in the thread. A 400 year sunspot chart in the link. I wonder if we're heading for another period of minimum solar activity.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers_png

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Hey guys, the main point of this thread was to help people understand the weather conditions on the island. Gypsy's services are dependent on the Royal Mail, and cold and snowy conditions have been hampering business.

On the climatolgy concerns all I have to say is, "Don't worry, be happy!"

Fire up a phatty and sit by the fire. Enjoy life and don't allow others to make life more difficult that it already is.

G'day all!

Right on... Regional cold temps and above average precipitation locally, is indicative of the sort of 'more extreme weather' climate models show becoming more frequent in a warming world.
Thanks for clarifying your reasoning.

I don't worry... what is is. It's just a shame that humanity would rather pick up the pieces after it all falls apart, than take steps to keep it together.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Wow, I feel a bit confused because I believe that there is truth to AGW and also believe in the evil that is(was) carbon taxing/credits(it all gets passed to the consumer anyway because investors require profitability therefore further squeezing the have-nots). I do not understand how people can dismiss the possibilities and repurcussions of human's ability to influence our climate(negatively or positively, it's all relative to ones placement in space and time I suppose), especially on the scale over the past 50-60 years. It seems those who totally dismiss the science have had their behavioral patterns and beliefs heavily conditioned by the ethos of multinational corporations and their propaganda shills in advertising and government. Corporate propaganda preys heavily on our sinister nature so no surprise there regarding our current state of affairs and lack of beliefs regarding any necessary stewardship of the planet.

The climate where I'm located (southeast) has been weird the past two years to say the least. We've had two snow events(09-10) with snow accumulation greater than 6" in an area that might receive a dusting every five years. For about three weeks in January, we never made it out of the 30s for highs. Then the summer is blazing hot(mid-upper 90s most of the summer). It seems things are just becoming more erratic with wild swings away from "normal" possibly due to the sun's activity and its effects on the ocean temperature and currents which affects the jet streams and so on. Climate is changing yet the earth needs some sort of stasis over the long term. Time will tell....

So I was way off on the cooling timeline I mentioned earlier in the thread. A 400 year sunspot chart in the link. I wonder if we're heading for another period of minimum solar activity.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers_png

We're actually in a minimum right now... That's one of the disturbing indicators: Temps kept rising when the solar cycle seemed to indicate they should have been falling. The warmest contiguous 12 months on record occurred in this current solar minimum.

As far as your position on AGW... I concur.
AGW is real. CO2 tax schemes are not a fix.

The fix should be to educate the public, and then let the market sort out solutions.
But a public with their head in the sand is not going to make smart energy choices.

 

[SmilinBob]

It's cold as fuck.
--
I don't keep up to date with this subject, because I believe in humanities inability to change on such a large scale. Take changing laws as an example. If we can't even get that right, how do we expect to change the world.. *sigh*

When it comes to earth's natural cycles, we are fucked.

Greenhouse effect is real. Even if you don't buy into all the scientific data.. You can't deny that Co2 increases heating. You can't deny humans produce way to much Co2. If you have a simple mind you can stop there.


I think HempKat said it best. Unless you believe that humanity(everyone in the whole fucking world) is going to change. Then you should worry less about what "we" need to do, and more about what you are going to do when it's to late to turn back.

I think it will take a major catastrophe(Millions dying) for people to make a change. Anything short of every person's life being significantly affected just won't have a enough of an impact..

You can tell someone how bad their lifestyle is all day, but until they are at rock bottom they aren't (usually) going to change. You can use that analogy for this case.


Where the fuck is jesus? Isn't he coming back? We are definitely going to need some help with this one.

--
Disregard evidence all you want. You can choose to accept or disregard that humans have the ability to influence our planet's atmosphere.

Honestly, I have zero hope for a voluntary change to humanities lifestyle.

No one is going to change to fuel efficient cars, unless gas prices are fucked.. Hmm

No one is going to change to a new energy source, unless oil prices are fucked.. Hmm.. might be on to something here. Governmental reverse psychology.

Humanities collective ego is way to fucking big. We need a disaster to set this course back on track.

By "No one" I mean enough people to make a difference.

 

[BrainSellz]

Where the fuck is jesus? Isn't he coming back?

lmao
i hope no one is holding their breath....

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Climate change: In the balance

While many people believe in climate change, others are unconvinced. An exhibition at the Science Museum reflects this ambivalence, says Nick Duerden

Monday, 6 December 2010

The Science Museum has just unveiled its new gallery, which is to be called, in unexplained lowercase, atmosphere. It is a low-lit neon blue, whisperingly atmospheric space that aims, says the introductory blurb, to deepen visitors' understanding of one of the hottest topics of our age: climate science.


The "science" bit is pertinent. Where once we would talk, quite happily and with unswerving, if second-hand, conviction, about climate change, we now have to walk with more trepidation. Climate change is not quite so fundamentally black and white anymore, if only because so many people have come along to doubt and pour scorn on it. In the summer, the Science Museum, increasingly aware of this mounting mood swing, even felt it necessary to revise the contents of its exhibits in order to fully acknowledge the wave of scepticism that that has engulfed the issue in recent months.



What this means, essentially, is that where once it might have tried gently to persuade us of the dangers of global warming, it now must take a more neutral position, to strive to acknowledge the myriad doubts held by many while continuing to present what it believes, and what is frequently backed up by as many as 120 independent scientific checkers, the facts.



"We are not, and never have been, here to tell people what to think," insists museum director, Professor Chris Rapley, "but simply to offer a way of how to think about the subject."



As a result, Rapley is now forced to choose his words with the exaggerated care of a politician. "We are all, to some or other extent, sceptics," he concedes, "but I think everybody now accepts is that this is a big issue, and that what is needed here is a sensible dialogue about it rather than a shrill shouting match."



The museum is keen to avoid framing this as a debate, he says, because debate assumes that one side is right and the other wrong. "That does us no good at all. What we need instead is intelligent discourse."



Which is what atmosphere, which was unveiled last week by Prince Charles, a man who has never had any problem in discussing climate issues in terms of change, aims to achieve.



It is split into zones, each focusing on a different part of climatic science: its history, throughout the 20th, and even 19th, century; the Earth's precarious energy balance; the evidence that the carbon cycle is being disrupted; and possible ways to generate energy in a low-carbon world, and featuring proposals like domestic energy monitors, carbon collectors, energy-harvesting paving slabs and hydrogen-powered urban cars that look like liquorice allsorts on Lego wheels.



There is an interactive exhibit, The Carbon Cycle, which explains how exchanges of carbon between the Earth, ocean and atmosphere were once relatively equal before human interference, and its centrepiece is a 700-year-old ice core extracted from the Antarctic, which contains information about the composition of the Earth's atmosphere and climate system stretching back hundreds, possibly thousands, of years. There is also a series of specially commissioned art works, including a new David Shrigley piece, a precarious house of playing cards whose unambiguous message needs little decoding.



"Our target audience? Families, children over the age of eight, and schoolchildren studying geography and science." Professor Rapley pauses. "And non-expert adults, of course."



Of which, he hardly needs add, there are a great many.



A few short years ago, news of increased activity in climate change came to us not couched in sensitive language but rather in cold, hard, brutish adjectives. Scientists, and even former presidential candidates, showed us how the world was dying, and how it was us, the human race, that were responsible for what might prove its irrevocable demise. They used diagrams, with footstools to reach their highest points, and spoke with such passion, such a sense of foreboding, that only a fool would doubt them.



But then, just as we were adjusting our own lives accordingly, investing in solar energy panels and no longer purchasing disposable nappies in quite so many numbers, a growing band of doubters began to emerge, learned people, highbrow scientists among them, to question such findings, and denounce them. Climate change, they argued, had been wildly exaggerated, possibly for political gain. The only thing that was conclusive about it, they said, was the level of hyperbole.



This prompted its own mildly catastrophic results: now thoroughly confused, an awful lot of the public simply switched off.



The Science Museum, rightly concerned, conducted a survey recently to ascertain just how much we knew about this clearly knobbly area of science. Its findings were that too many of us remained woefully ignorant about it, embarrassedly so.



"Any reasonably educated person feels that they should know more about it than they actually do," says Professor Rapley. "But what we all do know, at least, is that climate science in itself is important. It is a big subject that continues to be talked about all the time, and to such an extent that we each have a kind of love/hate relationship with it. But still, by and large, we know very, very, very little about it, just the odd nugget of information here and there, or disinformation, or misinformation, and it all gets lost in a hazy cloud of confusion."



He is smiling as he says this, but one imagines him frowning inside. The Science Museum's entire ethos, he points out, is to help people make sense of science, and to show how it affects our daily lives. Hence atmosphere.



He presumably also hopes the exhibition will silence the sceptics?



His smile tightens. "We are not here to tell anybody how to think," he says. "But I would say that what we present here is pretty uncontroversial, and I don't believe anybody could disagree with it. Whether we choose to act on the findings as a result is another matter, but we have been careful not to be misinterpreted here as advocates of policy or solution, but rather purveyors, as best as one can be, of fact."



And he suggests that we should confidently put our trust in the Science Museum because it has no particular axe to grind.



"We might not know how significant the impact [of continued global warming] might be," he says, "but we can see what might happen, and what the impact might be. Even if we don't have an exact prescription on what to do, we can try to make ourselves more resilient against it."



As you leave the exhibition and go back through the main building, you pass Planet Science, a large floating sphere onto which images of the Earth are projected, displaying the changing patterns of the atmosphere, vegetation and ocean levels. As the museum's space curator Doug Millard says: "We live in a world in which many subjects have a very short newsworthy shelf life, including climate, but this doesn't mean that climate change has stopped, because it hasn't. When people pass this display, they won't be able to help themselves but to stop and stare. It's a showstopper."



It is. From a distance, the Earth looks not merely beautiful, but quite perfect. It is only when you take a closer look that you realise it isn't. Not any more.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-change-in-the-balance-2151991.html

 

[grapeman]

No... Hide the decline WAS NOT hiding a decline is temperature AT ALL.
There was no decline in temperature to be hidden.

I knew you had no clue what was being discussed.

The 'decline' is a decline in the accuracy of the tree ring proxies due to additional environmental factors (i.e. air pollution)

You really really need to educate yourself. you've been pointed at the truth... why continue to believe the denier distortion? There was NO DECLINE in temperature to hide.

Much ado about nothing.
Phil was exonerated multiple times by independent investigations.
Old news trumped up "gate" bullshit has been completely debunked.

You speak in defense of some of the most egregious science ever undertaken.

Tree rings?? fucking tree rings?? You have to know, but are unwilling to share that in a whole forest of trees, they searched until they found 3 fucking trees with ring formations that would back up their fraudulent science. Only 3 fucking trees!! And you defend this bullshit. LOL And you think you can teach us something here??

Look, if you want to pay more for power - water - gas, feel free to do so. In fact, feel free to pay more in taxes also. But don't come in here and try to put a pretty face on a cow's ass and tell us that there was NO intentional outcomes of this scientific hoax that is "man made global warming".

Bullshit.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

They weren't just any trees. They were trees that fell in acid bath thousands of years ago.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

You speak in defense of some of the most egregious science ever undertaken.

Tree rings?? fucking tree rings?? You have to know, but are unwilling to share that in a whole forest of trees, they searched until they found 3 fucking trees with ring formations that would back up their fraudulent science. Only 3 fucking trees!! And you defend this bullshit. LOL And you think you can teach us something here??

Look, if you want to pay more for power - water - gas, feel free to do so. In fact, feel free to pay more in taxes also. But don't come in here and try to put a pretty face on a cow's ass and tell us that there was NO intentional outcomes of this scientific hoax that is "man made global warming".

Bullshit.

Bullshit.
Global Warming denial is the hoax.
Anyone who knows anything about climate science knows that.

Why core sample a whole forest, when every tree of similar age in that location is going to show the exact same thing?

Anyhow... despite the tree ring proxies being perfectly credible as evidence... that is but one piece in the jigsaw puzzle, and in no way foundational to any house of cards.

Also... that greening up our energy sources must result in huge cost increases is propaganda and has little basis in fact, any more than pretending that everyone who does not have their head buried in the comfortable sand of ignorance is trying to tax you.

 

[sac beh]

Tree rings?? fucking tree rings?? You have to know, but are unwilling to share that in a whole forest of trees, they searched until they found 3 fucking trees with ring formations that would back up their fraudulent science. Only 3 fucking trees!! And you defend this bullshit. LOL And you think you can teach us something here??

21. We do not find that the way that data derived from tree rings is described and presented in IPCC AR4 and shown in its Figure 6.10 is misleading. In particular, on the question of the composition of temperature reconstructions, we found no evidence of exclusion of other published temperature reconstructions that would show a very different picture. The general discussion of sources of uncertainty in the text is extensive, including reference to divergence. In this respect it represented a significant advance on the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR).

22. On the allegation that the phenomenon of “divergence” may not have been properly taken into account when expressing the uncertainty associated with reconstructions, we are satisfied that it is not hidden and that the subject is openly and extensively discussed in the literature, including CRU papers.

Grapeman, did you have some new evidence you would like to present to us here today to back your claims which in this review were debunked?

 

[B. Friendly]

our climate has a cycle of 1000's of years, what we see today is not representative of global warming or cooling.
Global climate specialists are the weather man. So go on believing whatever you want.

just stop listening to the weather guy about global anything.

How come SCIENCE never admits it knows jack shit.

 

[sac beh]

our climate has a cycle of 1000's of years, what we see today is not representative of global warming or cooling.
Global climate specialists are the weather man. So go on believing whatever you want.

just stop listening to the weather guy about global anything.

How come SCIENCE never admits it knows jack shit.

Actually, you wouldn't know anything about natural climate cycles without scientists--those who study natural climate cycles and have enough experience to comment on them. Weather-guy meteorology has very little to do with the science of global climate.

These same scientists have found that the natural cycles do not explain current climate trends.