What happened to Global Warming?

There are to many factors not calculated to even remotely suggest we have anything to do with global warming

It is complete and utter nonsense. It is about as nonsensical as awarding an award to a sitting president for peace while his country is involved in 2 wars

 

Even some Global Warming proponents are saying that we could be in for 20 years of cooling, if it were 2 years I could accept that it was a blip that didn't mean much, but 20 years? Temperature fluctuations are cyclical IMO, there are so many variables that determine temperature (most of them we hardly understand), I find it difficult to believe that we can accurately predict any reasonable longterm outcome with these computer models.

 

One would think so, but the GW folks in the UN and our own government argue otherwise. I'm always intrigued to hear what former ICPP global warming folks have to say, I found a link before that had all of their quotes, I'll have to see if I can dig it up, but the one that struck me the most was "Global warming is the new religion, it's a way to spread the wealth from the rich developed countries to the poorer less industrial ones. It's a global welfare" (paraphrasing). When you look at government, where we're headed, what cap and trade would do, and evidence like this (What happened to GW?) it's hard to disagree with that assessment. There is a full steam ahead effort to get this cap and trade thing passed, one has to ask why?

 

Yeah, NOW they are saying that. Funny how we've been laughed at, and ridiculed over the years for saying the same thing.

NONE of the warministas predicted the cooling until we were years into it, NOT ONE. Not one of the 20 IPCC models showed anything other than a steady rapid warming. Infact, they have fought the very idea of cooling tooth and nail, even as its been taking place right under their noses. But oh sure, NOW we are cooling? Yeah right. These guys and gals are doing nothing more than damage control. They are desperatedly trying to keep the debate alive by essentially saying, "You just wait until your father gets home"....errr, I mean, "You just wait until 2020 when it warms again, and warms even faster!"

The only ones with a high level of predictive skill at long range forecasting, and who nailed the current cooling, have been a few prominent solar physicists. These are the guys who are right more than not, and they are not painting a pretty picture thru 2050.

How sad is it that it had to take yet another year of record ice extent in Antarctica, a third year of ice recovering in the Arctic, a 6th year of reduced ocean heat content, the current FALLING OF SEA LEVELS, and tens of thousands of cold weather records being shattered this year (3000 in July alone), before certain people even started raising an eyebrow.

 

Here's one that was put together by Orin Hatch just a couple weeks ago. It has nearly 40 pages of quote after quote from IPCC scientists and reviewers that also appeared in the US Senate Minority Report.

Go ahead and post your favorite quotes.

http://hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/UNClimateScientistsSpeakOut.pdf

 

it really makes you wonder if the global warming cap and trade stuff, the falling dollar and this health care bill arent all connected into one super plan to do just that.

 

you racist terrorist neo nazi you

 

That's a great list! I read through some of them, some I've read before and others were completely new to me. That's sure to get passed around via email.

I think it is, it's an effort to make America less of a superpower and turn it into just "one of the crowd". Unfortunately there are some folks that feel that our standing in the world is arrogant and they'd like to see us fall in step with the do nothing UN, giving them more say in how we do business in this country and abroad.

I remember back to when we were told that the world was going to collapse if we didn't pass the first stimulus bill in 24 hours, Mike Huckabee was on TV and he said that the FBI had noticed some odd transactions and were looking into possible economic terrorism, essentially someone was trying to make our situation worse or just give the appearance that it was worsening. That set the stage for all of these ridiculous bailouts, takeovers, cap and trade, etc. When you listen to some of these folks that talk about undermining or overthrowing capitalism (some of them within our own government), one of their first solutions is to create a financial crisis and then follow that up with a foreign crisis to make it easier for people to accept what the government wants to do. People usually rally around the president when times are tough, they wouldn't be as accepting of radical change if they really had a chance to see what's in store.

So I do see a link. Where it's coming from and who is involved? I think we all have ideas, but it's hard to say with any certainty that Person X is responsible. It's a web of people, groups and organizations IMO, not just one or two people.

 

of course Jason, you have a link or two for me on this..

 

its not invalidated in any way. You guys can use this to try to invalidate global warming, but until you can show proof that co2 and other gasses we put into the atmosphere have no effect, then you in no way invalidate global warming. FYI the current cooling trend is due to less sun surface activity. Not sure how anyone could predict that.

 

global warming predicts humans have a large enough effect to raise the temperature of the earth. Not taht humans are the only component which has that ability. Again it in no way invalidates the global warming theory.

 

no agw is based on evidence of it happening in the past, i.e. early earth and models.
AGW also in no way omits the effect that the sun or other components would have on the earth. Which is what you are trying to argue. We are experiencing a cooling because of the sun having less activity.

 

thanks Andrew, I am up to speed on ice.

I want to see something credible that says sea levels are rising...

 

again the models are one piece of the theory. again it in no way invalidates agw. you can say the models are wrong, but unless you have more proof it in no way invalidates agw.

 

because agw is more then just models. its ice cores, its prediction using models, its current climate data, its current c02 and other gases output, its past climate modeling , analysis of past plant species, animal adaptations, etc.

 

If you're talking about the fact that sun spot activity has stopped completely, I agree that noone could have predicted that. The sun can go through anomalous periods as well, it has in th past and will again in the future. But the sun works in 11 year cycles, it has pretty uniform periods of activity and inactivity, just like the warming and cooling cycles here on earth. Anyone who has been saying that the sun has more impact on surface temperatures of earth than man can raise their chin and smile, and I'm smiling.

 

Lucky, did you read the .pdf that Jason posted?

 

um you are talking about future prediction models. That is your whole premise, that they did not accurately predict the cooling therefore agw is wrong. Are you now contending the past models are inaccurate as well? If so why?

 

Did agw predict that the sun was not the main component for the heating of the earth? if so link please.

 

what about it?

 

Should I link you to Al Gore's movie or every comment about GW over the past 10 years?

We've been told that carbon emissions have been the main cause for warming, even when the warming stopped and it started to cool. Now some are saying "oh well, pay no mind to the recent cooling, 'cause it's only going to get warmer 20 years from now and then you'll be sorry". Some of these same folks are the ones who said that we were going to have a new ice age back in the late 70's and early 80's, they are opportunists that are trying to push a clean earth agenda, regardless with whether facts back them up or not.

There is some very good info in there that may answer your questions, some of the comments come right out and say that the governments are skewing the data to find the worst to support their cap and trade agenda. These are ICPP folks, they aren't your random internet novice scientist who looks at a climate report and says "ah ha, conspiracy!".

 

well facts would say we have an effect on the earth. I don't think you can say humans do not have an effect, nor does agw attempt to do so. In fact agw states that we amplify the effects of the sun, not that the sun is not a major factor.

I can see saying the problem may not be as big as originally thought to be. I can no see saying that we do not have an effect on the climate. I think most evidence and even scientists agree on this point, the debate is on how much of an effect mainly. Having said that even if we have a little effect, unless you can prove there is some counter which is infinite, eventually we will overload the system, thus having a larger effect.

 

They say that we are at a critical level, a point of no return, that man has set a chain in motion that can't be stopped unless we dramatically cut back on emissions and impose tax upon tax, and yet here we are facing what could be 20 years of cooling. If it were a one year anomaly, maybe I could swallow that, but even as the earth has been cooling these GW folks in government and the UN have looked directly into the camera and said that it was warming to unprecedented levels and anyone who didn't believe them was a moron. When I ask myself why and look at what is put infront of us in the form of data and policy, the answer is pretty obvious, it's a scam, the new big oil.

We do have an effect, I just think that it's incredibly small and insignificant. If you were to sit on a see-saw and an ant was on the other end, he definitely has an effect, but is it enough to cause a change in the balance? I don't think so, and I see this the same way. Temps were much higher in the past, sea levels have fluctuated in the past, the earth is an ever changing and evolving place that goes through periods of extreme weather and periods of relatively calm weather. Judging by what I've read from former ICPP folks, this whole hullabaloo is over nothing and the earth will continue to warm and cool on it own, regardless with what we're doing. The only urgency is to get some legislation passed before folks realize that it's a scam.

 

The global warming push from the media continues

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...-al-qaeda-taliban-being-helped-global-warming

 

this current cycle has extended itself, it is lasting longer than expected.

 

Yup, and from what I've read the sun is doing all sorts of crazy things. Not only are sunspots nonexistent, but the solar wind is the weakest ever recorded and the sun's magnetic axis has shifted to a unusual angle.

Lets just hope that it doesn't burp one day and send a planet cleansing wave of "Holy ****!" our way.

 

pretty big scam if so. Funny how people turn to conspiracy theories so often. And regardless, again, unless you can prove that our effects can be countered infinitely, then one would have to assume eventually we will overload the system.

most of those changes were due to outside interference, i.e. comets, asteroids, or just massive amounts of gas in the air. Again you say you believe we have an effect, minimalize it then say we have no effect. You don't find that a bit convenient?

 

So if we have a .005% effect on the overall system (for example), that means that we are creating a problem that warrants cap and trade type regulation (overload the system)? I see our impact as minimal, certainly not enough to cause the panic that some are trying to push, more in line with a level that is correctable by the earth (trees and other plant life)

As far as the conspiracy theory, that kind of validated my point about how skeptics are treated.

If they aren't in it for the money, why ignore data and smear folks in an effort to push through legislation that isn't needed?

That's not really what I said brother, I said we have a minimal effect on climate change. The connection between earth cycles and solar activity play a far more important and influential role in determining climate. Our activity is minimal and doesn't impact the larger system that is around us in any disruptive way. Again, the ant on a see-saw example.

 

Here is the latest from the University of Colorado Boulder.



Anthony Watts uses it in this article.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/18/global-sea-level-updated-at-uc-still-flattening/



Here are the big three plotted individually.



The Pacific and Atlantic are no suprise as the PDO and AMO are negative, so there has to be less thermal expansion going on. The Indian Ocean suprised me because sea levels in the Maldives were dropping last I remember.



Also, the Arctic Ocean, which is not included, has also been dropping. To the tune of around 2mm annually.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3120/is_9_78/ai_n29290574/

 

You talk about how skeptics are treated then imply others are in it for the money? Come on now. And I will fall in line with the whole it is correctable by the earth when there is proof that it is correctable by the earth. Thus far I have not read any actual evidence it is correctable by the earth. And again even if it is eventually the system will become saturated. In which case if there is a natural counter, you damn well better know how much the system/counter can handle.

Then what problem do you have with AGW? AGW dictates we will raise the temperature only a few degrees. Problem is, the effect those little degrees have on the system as a whole. Your ant see saw example does not apply in that case. The ant is no longer negligable in that case.

 

BTW: If anyone wants to see just how ridiculous sea level rise predictions have become, just look at this graph of sea level rise from the depths of the last ice age to present. This should put things into perspective.

As you can see, sea levels rose quickly as we came out of the last ice age, because huge continental glaciers covering a sizable chunk of the northern hemisphere melted rapidly. That was an enormous amount of meltwater.



Now, do you see the time period marked "Meltwater Pulse 1A"? This was the highest rate of sea level rise recorded at that time. It actually represents a 10 ft per century rate of sea level rise over a thousand year period. In case you are wondering, the AGW crowd says we will experience 20ft in the next century, and James "I got arrested again" Hansen said something like 60ft.

Now, how on God's green Earth can we possibly experience twice the rate of sea level rise that the Earth saw while coming out of the last ice age? Seriously? Do we have vast ice sheets, a mile thick, covering North America, Europe, and Asia.... all melting at a terrific rate to contribute that much meltwater? Is this some kind of joke?

How about the rest of the portion of that graph that isn't as steep? That represents about a 6ft per century of sea level rise over a 3000 year period. Can we even achive that? Again, do today's conditions on Earth even resemble that period in ANY way shape or form? Is there even enough ice at lower latitudes to melt? No, not even close.

So the next time someone tries to scare you with ridiculous rates of sea level rise, remember this graph, and the over-the-top conditions it took to achive just a quarter of the numbers that some bozos are trying to sell you.

 

That isn't just my observation, it's also the opinion of scientists who have seen how data is being manipulated to reach a pre-determined conclusion. Cap and Tax is going to generate alot of money, both in revenue and for those who are in the business of "green energy". Wanna guess how much stock Nancy Pelosi and her husband own in T. Boone Pickens' wind farms? Lets just say that her grandchildren's grandchildren won't be going hungry.

And it's like that across the board, from Al Gore to the scientists receiving grant money to research GW.

As far as it being correctable, I go back to the scientists who point to how plants fit into the equation.

"CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food. The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet." - John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere. For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state of relative carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence that levels double or even triple those of today will be harmful, climatically or otherwise. As a vital element in plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food chain - literally the staff of life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening of the planet. To label carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is an abuse of language, logic and science." - Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Sciences, James Cook University"

More here
http://www.populartechnology.net/2008/11/carbon-dioxide-co2-is-not-pollution.html

I don't believe that we will have that type of impact, that has been my point all along.