Anthropogenic Global Warming Proponent says prepare for Ice Age

Nukes. Lots of them.

 

have you heard of nuclear winter?

 

Sorry guys, I didn't mean to imply that an Ice Age is right around the corner. I don't know if your great great grandchildren's great great grandchildren would even have to worry.

However, a return to the temps of the 1700's would make life disasterous for millions or perhaps billions of people if we are illprepared.

Is this a trick question?

I don't see much difference in the two. But if I had to choose, I'd have to go with b, simply because I've never met the devil, and he's never made my blood boil.

People murder each other over ten bucks, a pair of sneakers or a jacket. What's AGW funding up to now, $80 Billion? Just saying........

AGW is a crisis funded industry. No crisis = No funding. No matter what you are researching, if you add GW to your grant application, your funded. It's gotten completely out of control.

And with that final thought, I give you the finest global warming video ever made:


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLxicwiBQ7Q"]YouTube- Global Warming Causes More Sex[/ame]

 

I'm sorry, but I don't necessarily buy that. I would not underestimate science, especially when it comes down to human survival.

 

I apologize if I'm wrong here, but if your a believer in the AGW theory, which I'm assuming you are, then no, I wouldn't expect you to buy that. I say that because AGW's are under the impression that our system is very sensitive (it's not) and believe that we are capable of warming the planet to catastrophic levels using just a trace gas.

I wouldn't either. Science and tech will allow us to survive, only it won't be from diverting the next ice age. It will be all about how to survive in a harsh world.

Unless that is, we actually figure out how to control the sun.

 

The radiation would keep us warm.

 

Controlling the sun is a possibility, and controlling our climate through science and technology is a possibility. Being able to manipulate jet streams, etc. is what I'm referring to.

Whether you believe in AGW is irrelevant. Its about the human race surviving.

 

the idea that rises in the net average of worldwide temperature could cause global cooling is nothing terribly new. Such an idea has been advanced as the 'cause' of the previous Ice Age

Basically, warming leads to the melting of polar ice sheets, which flood the oceans with fresh water, which interrupt massive circulating ocean currents, which no longer bring warmer water to polar areas and allow for ice sheets to creep unchecked to lower latitudes

if fresh water does indeed displace ocean currents, then the only consequence of increased worldwide temperatures would be global cooling- unless the atmosphere gets fundamentally changed.

 

Make one up then.

Cheney is clearly Santa's evil bother; I don't think that's even debatable. After a botched take over attempt by Cheney, Santa is using Christmas magic to punish the US, and Florida specifically.

 

that gas is a variable in a chaotic system. That can have minmal or large effect. Right now most of the science points to it having a large effect. This study says it is estimated almost as much as 50% of even the warming could be due to this current cycle. The exact percent of our effect is debateable. But using this to say we have no effect is just an overexageration.

 

It jumped to 54 today. It feels great. Ice Age my ***.

 

It is curently 69 degrees!!

OH NO..The Global Warming is gonna kill us.

I think we can use a couple of cold days. I miss them now.

They are talking 80 degrees for Sunday...THE HORROR!

 

Pay me 1,000 dollars or it will not hit 60 degrees in September 2015.

And that is the Global Warming scam in a nutshell.

 

This is what is coming:

Man made climate change is evident whether or not there is usual weather or unusual weather. Whether or not weather is effected by man is not the question anymore. Its whether the weather will be warm or cool, or whether the weather will be hot or cold. If there is weather, it is a result of man made climate change. The way to fix it will be to decide whether the US used the most weather or whether Europe or Africa used the most weather. Then, the UN will decide whether or not the US will get taxed for their use of weather or whether or not Europe will get taxed for their use of weather.

Basically, it will become a tax on weather use.

Spoiler

I hope your head hurts after reading that. LOL

 

less evil. more genius.

thanks.

 

Well, no. The "science" points to it having a small effect - at most about 1 degree impact.

Unproven theories implemented in computer models suggest it having a large effect. That's not science - or at least not scientific proof of a large effect.

Or graphically:



Great presentation here discussing the actual science and theories.

http://www.climate-movie.com/Climate Presentation Annotated 1-1-2010.pdf

 

$1000? Chump change.

Michael Mann got a half a mill in STIMULUS money alone to continue to hide the decline.

http://biggovernment.com/2010/01/14/hide-the-job-decline-stimulus-funds-to-climategate-professor/

 

funny you guys attack the computer models yet this research was based on models, and it is not called into question..........
and the computer models are modified when flaws are found with them, new variables are put in, etc. How is that not science? And again attacking computer models as not science attacks alot of other fields such as astronomy, physics, math, etc.

 

Sure - so the current article is based on a model. Does that make it scientific proof? Heck no - it's a theory that will be proven out or disproved in the future.

All that it takes is one thing to kill a theory. Many of the computer models - in the brief time they've forecasted global warming - have already been shown to not be able to predict the near future (the recent lapse in warming).

As new data becomes availabe, you can tweak the model to account for the past - hindsight is 20-20, but until the assumptions on future warming and the net effect of positive feedbacks in regards to water vapor are proven out - all those models are just theories and not proof of anything.

 

Yet here we are using it to show global warming to be the belief of the lunatic fringe correct?

No thats not true. It would depend on if the theory is solely based on that one thing. Theories can be right in some aspects and wrong in others. Since global warming is based on in house observation and experimentation saying it is bunk based on the models not being up to par is to basically look for any reason to undermine the theory of global warming and humans effect on it.

some of the models have been tweaked to include water vapors, dust, some even attempting to take into account biomass.

 

Sorry, bro. Gotta disagree. If any part of theory is wrong, the entire theory is wrong. You have to come up with a new theory that is not based an incorrect assumption to replace the old theory.

http://www.williamcronon.net/researching/quantitative.htm

The thing is, contrary to the way some want to portray it, there is a huge amount of uncertainity with the global warming models - and just having the models isn't proof of anything.

 

No, no its not. Man, you must have misunderstood what I was saying. There is no controlling the Sun's irradiance, magnetic field, ect... We cannot fly out to the sun and turn up the dimmer switch to prevent an ice age.

As far as the jet stream goes, even if the conspiracy theories about weather weapons are true, it again is not going to be enough.

 

Everything in this post, except that statement was right on the money.

Most of the science? Sorry brother, but I don't see that in observations, or research of the last 5 or so years. Infact, I've seen quite the opposite. Including the vindication of Richard Lindzen's Infrared Iris Effect theory. This theory stated that nature can sense excessive heat in the atmosphere, and automaticly take steps to vent that excess heat out into space. He took alot of heat (pardon the pun) over that theory 10 years ago, but several researchers have now found the mechanisms, including cirrus cloud roll back. Cirrus clouds being the only clouds that behave with a positive feedback (except in computer models, where all clouds cause positive feedbacks ).

Seriously. Look no further than the most massive el nino we've ever seen back in 1998. The oceans burped up so much of their heat into the atmosphere, the global mean temperature spiked up over one full degree. Then, as fast as it came....it was all gone. Why? Because our atmosphere cannot hold on to it's heat for very long. In other words, it's simply not that sensitive. Or not the kind of sensitive some would like you to believe.

 

Wattaya talking about Hoffy? Have you ever seen another group of people change their theories, smoking guns, major premises, or ideas as much as the AGW crowd ove the years? It's not like they are constantly trying to cling to a increasingly suspect theory now is it?

 

While watching the History channel last night there was a program about Water and lakes in the Sahara and that this comes about every 20,000 years because the Earth wobbles on its axis, something I never knew. Did anyone here know it?

There are still so many things about our planet we know little or nothing about one wonders just how much damage is done by those who profess that Man is the only problem yet we really have no clue as to the cycles the Earth goes thru naturally. OR that the very things we do are just another part of the builtin natural cycle.

 

That is a well known variable, as is changes in our orbit around the Sun, and plate tectonics.

By the way Ron, portions of the Sahara are going green again. Did they mention that? I've read where it is a combo of increased rain fall, AND the increase of atmosphereic CO2. Increased CO2 levels enables plants to need and use less water.

 

Wow Jason, no they didn't but after viewing that program and seeing the mess caused by knee jerk hits on Global warming Nothing pleases me more than to see kinks thrown into the ideas of those who think they know everything.

Just maybe we are supposed to be here helping to produce this extra CO2 to make up for the green that we use because we are here in the first place. Of course not being an expert, what do I know.

 

I wanted to watch that but I had "Inherit the Wind" on the other channel and got caught up.

Anyway, my guess is that if our species is around 100 years from now they'll laugh at the theories that claimed we had any significant impact on global warming or climate change or whatever their calling it now. They'll view those "models" in the same light as we view currently view those old theories stating that the Earth is flat.

 

India turns up heat over 'Glaciergate'

India turns up heat over 'Glaciergate'