That's not the impression I get.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
The difference between the mild climate we have to day and a full fledged global ice age is 6 degrees C. Half a degree, is a huge amount for short time period.HurricaИe wrote:
All wikipedia told me about that is that it makes the ocean surface colder by a whopping half a degree Celsius.Spark wrote:
For the fifth or sixth time to you. It's called an La Nina.HurricaИe wrote:
Global warming... hah... Wednesday it was a warm temperature, high 60s, some rain
Today it was fucking freezing until the afternoon, when it was only fucking freezing when the wind blew.
Warming... hah... two years ago I was wearing shorts and a t-shirt regularly around this time of year.
Fuck you too. Arsehole.Schittloaf wrote:
Ozone hole none existent r12 refrigerant was removed for no reason. Government BS
From September 21-30, 2006 the average area of the ozone hole was the largest ever observed, at 10.6 million square miles (27.5 million square kilometres). This image, from September 24, the Antarctic ozone hole was equal to the record single-day largest area of 11.4 million square miles (29.5 million square kilometres), reached on Sept. 9, 2000. Satellite instruments monitor the ozone layer, and we use their data to create the images that depict the amount of ozone. The blue and purple colors are where there is the least ozone, and the greens, yellows, and reds are where there is more ozone.
GW has been a cause for Ice Ages in the past and will be again.Freke1 wrote:
Some scientists think we will have an iceage around 2055.
Shut down the North Atlantic conveyor and the Northen hemisphere will lose the milding effects of the currents and enter an Ice Age."For every degree (F) increase in the mean annual temperature near Greenland, the rate of sea level rise increases by about 10 percent," Steffen said. Currently the oceans are rising by a little more than half an inch per decade. In addition, melt water has been shown to directly affect the rate of ice flow off Greenland, penetrating the ice sheet and causing the glaciers to accelerate in speed as they slide over a thin film of melt water.
Excessive melting of sea ice, along with runoff from the Greenland Ice Sheet, also has the potential to "cap" deep water convection in the North Atlantic. This could profoundly impact global ocean circulation and climate, Serreze said. "In other studies, changes in the North Atlantic circulation have been implicated in starting and stopping Northern Hemisphere ice ages."
I would usually be all over such a statement like... well. First, the attempted connection between the ozone hole and GW and government conspiracies (lolwut?). Second, the arrogance that says that something that kills hundreds if not thousands every year is complete fabrication...DrunkFace wrote:
Fuck you too. Arsehole.Schittloaf wrote:
Ozone hole none existent r12 refrigerant was removed for no reason. Government BSFrom September 21-30, 2006 the average area of the ozone hole was the largest ever observed, at 10.6 million square miles (27.5 million square kilometres). This image, from September 24, the Antarctic ozone hole was equal to the record single-day largest area of 11.4 million square miles (29.5 million square kilometres), reached on Sept. 9, 2000. Satellite instruments monitor the ozone layer, and we use their data to create the images that depict the amount of ozone. The blue and purple colors are where there is the least ozone, and the greens, yellows, and reds are where there is more ozone.
But.
The guy has no brains, pure and simple. He's probably looking at your post and thinking 'wut is that' and admiring the pretty colours on your picture.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
keep on arguing I want to see how this turns out... 
You can read as many wiki articles as you want. Until you've done research into it I'm not willing to accept that Global Warming is complete fabrication, and no matter how many resources you can link that tell me what you're saying is true. I can link you to twice as many telling you Christianity is a fact.
It's almost as amusing as people talking about what governments need to do to sort out their finical crisis. Because you'd know better than a team that devotes its whole life to understanding it.
It's almost as amusing as people talking about what governments need to do to sort out their finical crisis. Because you'd know better than a team that devotes its whole life to understanding it.
What I find funny is that mostly white people are complaining about this "global warming" than any other race.
it's called guilt.The#1Spot wrote:
What I find funny is that mostly white people are complaining about this "global warming" than any other race.
and maybe a product of the fact that the industrialised west is predominantly 'white'?Reciprocity wrote:
it's called guilt.The#1Spot wrote:
What I find funny is that mostly white people are complaining about this "global warming" than any other race.
Spot on.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
It is fact that the climate is changing.
And it is a fact that part of that change is natural.
Just as it is a fact that part of that change is due to man.
Global Warming warming is the 1992 Homelessness issue of 2008. When a Democrat got elected we never heard again of Homelessness. Come to think of it they never spoke of health care from 1992 till 2000. why is that ?
I almost hope a democrat wins just so the media will stfu for 8 years.
I almost hope a democrat wins just so the media will stfu for 8 years.
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2008-03-22 05:48:04)
Not going to happen. This is nothing like the homelessness issue of 1992, which I know nothing about. It is a massive global issue and there is massive global pressure, that is bringing about quite radical change which is set to become more and more prevalent in everyones lives globally. This is not a party issue within a single state, but a global issue which isn't just going to disappear overnight.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Global Warming warming is the 1992 Homelessness issue of 2008. When a Democrat got elected we never heard of again Homelessness. Come to think of it they never spoke of health care from 1992 till 2000. why is that ?
I almost hope a democrat wins just so the media will stfu for 8 years.
I am not White. I am a Northern European Caucasian.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
and maybe a product of the fact that the industrialised west is predominantly 'white'?Reciprocity wrote:
it's called guilt.The#1Spot wrote:
What I find funny is that mostly white people are complaining about this "global warming" than any other race.
Non-Caucasians don't use electricity drive cars take trains or use products produced and delivered by the same?
They don't farm, ranch or subsist on products produced by the same ?
I didn't realize all non-Caucasians were still living in trees ?
Maybe the guilt, however misguided, is just yours ?
It is not mine.
Just an example of the twisting of facts:
The rise in CO2 happens 800 years AFTER the rise in temperature. Al Gore didn't tell us that!
Everything about this GW debate is irrational. It's like religion. Even the scientists are political.
You should watch "The cloud mystery" (2007 docu) when it's shown in the TV.
GW - fine, twisting of the facts - no way.
The rise in CO2 happens 800 years AFTER the rise in temperature. Al Gore didn't tell us that!
Everything about this GW debate is irrational. It's like religion. Even the scientists are political.
You should watch "The cloud mystery" (2007 docu) when it's shown in the TV.
GW - fine, twisting of the facts - no way.
You noob, global warming doesn't only cause the earth to warm up, it causes the Gulf Stream to shut down, sending Europe into an iceage.
No breathers.
No breathers.
Think about this: in AD 1000, Newfoundland had grapevines growing on it. Hence the name Vinland attributed by Leif Erikson. Oh, wait, it's currently impossible to grow vines there (WHAT?). I guess it has cooled then. And, we've had a depression in temperature during the Industrial Revolution. Oh look, it's a natural cycle! Who would have believed it? I won't deny that man is accentuating it, but we can't change a natural cycle.
I like pie.
If humanity had been around during the dinosaurs, Al Gore would have blamed us for their extinction.
Global Warming is a load of poo. I don't believe it, and I don't drive a big enough truck, either.
Global Warming is a load of poo. I don't believe it, and I don't drive a big enough truck, either.
This is the way I see it .... take a look.
How lucky do you feel ?????
How lucky do you feel ?????
Global Warming is because:
the earth is expanding!!!!111!!!!!!zomg!!!!
...in other words, a load of crap.
the earth is expanding!!!!111!!!!!!zomg!!!!
...in other words, a load of crap.
EE (hats
Very interesting video above.
Well, I feel very lucky. I ain't buying that doomsday scenario, it could turn out the other way - that the so called "manmade global warning" might get us through the next iceage. Why don't ppl consider this option? Because they like to be scared (for some reason).
And yes there will be a next iceage - allways has in the past.
Well, I feel very lucky. I ain't buying that doomsday scenario, it could turn out the other way - that the so called "manmade global warning" might get us through the next iceage. Why don't ppl consider this option? Because they like to be scared (for some reason).
And yes there will be a next iceage - allways has in the past.
Last edited by Freke1 (2008-03-22 10:27:58)
You keep telling yourself that.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Global Warming warming is the 1992 Homelessness issue of 2008. When a Democrat got elected we never heard again of Homelessness. Come to think of it they never spoke of health care from 1992 till 2000. why is that ?
I almost hope a democrat wins just so the media will stfu for 8 years.
Meanwhile, the rest of us are moving on.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
The Australian reports a few inconvenient truths regarding global climate change that have yet to receive much attention from a media sold on global warming. Not only has the Earth cooled since its peak year in 1998, not only are oceans cooler than predicted, but new NASA data shows that the computer models that predicted runaway global warming were based on a fundamental error. Rather than having clouds and water vapor amplifying the warming effect of carbon in the atmosphere, it turns out that they compensate for it.:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st … 83,00.html
So far, no one asserts that we have produced less carbon in the atmosphere. Global-warming activists continue to make Chicken Little predictions of catastrophe based on increases in carbon releases, especially from China and India as they modernize and industrialize. If carbon releases resulted in global warming, then the rate of increase should be constant; there definitely should be no decrease, especially given the theoretical amplification of water vapor.
Apparently, though, both assumptions have either proven incorrect or far too simplified to explain the actual impact of carbon on global temperatures. That’s not surprising, especially given the previous global-cooling scare of the 1970s and how baseless that theory turned out to be. What’s surprising is the utter lack of coverage that the new data has received. Why haven’t the same media outlets that relentlessly cover global-warming advocacy reported on the appearance of contradictory data?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st … 83,00.html
Hmm. How many have actually heard that the NASA Aqua satellite returned this kind of data? I searched the New York Times and found nothing since 2006 on Aqua — and that was just an announcement that NASA would launch more satellites to study weather. The Washington Post reported on ice loss in the Arctic just this week, but noted that Aqua shows an ice increase in the Acrtic this winter, but never reported on the other data that throws cold water on global warming.Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.
Duffy asked Marohasy: “Is the Earth stillwarming?”
She replied: “No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you’d expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years.”
Duffy: “Is this a matter of any controversy?”
Marohasy: “Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued … This is not what you’d expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you’d expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up … So (it’s) very unexpected, not something that’s being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it’s very significant.” …
Duffy: “Can you tell us about NASA’s Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we’re now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?”
Marohasy: “That’s right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you’ve got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you’re going to get a positive feedback. That’s what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite … (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they’re actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you’re getting a negative rather than a positive feedback.”
Duffy: “The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?”
Marohasy: “That’s right … These findings actually aren’t being disputed by the meteorological community. They’re having trouble digesting the findings, they’re acknowledging the findings, they’re acknowledging that the data from NASA’s Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they’re about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide.”
So far, no one asserts that we have produced less carbon in the atmosphere. Global-warming activists continue to make Chicken Little predictions of catastrophe based on increases in carbon releases, especially from China and India as they modernize and industrialize. If carbon releases resulted in global warming, then the rate of increase should be constant; there definitely should be no decrease, especially given the theoretical amplification of water vapor.
Apparently, though, both assumptions have either proven incorrect or far too simplified to explain the actual impact of carbon on global temperatures. That’s not surprising, especially given the previous global-cooling scare of the 1970s and how baseless that theory turned out to be. What’s surprising is the utter lack of coverage that the new data has received. Why haven’t the same media outlets that relentlessly cover global-warming advocacy reported on the appearance of contradictory data?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Interesting, Im'a look it up right now.
Hang on...
Epic fail.
The dumbest four-year-old knows that a cloudy day is COLDER than a sunny day...
Edit again. I just found this: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/enviro … rmest.html
Interesting. I suppose the above doubt about models doesn't apply. These are observations, and it's hard to fault them.
---
Third edit:
I think I may have an explanation for the 'plateau'... there was a pretty big El Nino in '98, followed by a few La Nina or neutral years. This would've lasted til about 03, 04, when the next big El Nino kicked in. That would've plateau'd it a bit - ENSO has a much, much, much bigger impact on climate variations on a short-term basis (though remember it should balance itself out: if it's not, then we have a big problem)
Hang on...
Oh my fucking god.Rather than having clouds and water vapor amplifying the warming effect of carbon in the atmosphere, it turns out that they compensate for it.:
Epic fail.
The dumbest four-year-old knows that a cloudy day is COLDER than a sunny day...
Edit again. I just found this: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/enviro … rmest.html
Interesting. I suppose the above doubt about models doesn't apply. These are observations, and it's hard to fault them.
---
Third edit:
I think I may have an explanation for the 'plateau'... there was a pretty big El Nino in '98, followed by a few La Nina or neutral years. This would've lasted til about 03, 04, when the next big El Nino kicked in. That would've plateau'd it a bit - ENSO has a much, much, much bigger impact on climate variations on a short-term basis (though remember it should balance itself out: if it's not, then we have a big problem)
Last edited by Spark (2008-03-24 00:40:54)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
A cloudy night is warmer then a clear night...Spark wrote:
The dumbest four-year-old knows that a cloudy day is COLDER than a sunny day...
Last edited by DrunkFace (2008-03-24 01:31:15)
Quote from Sparks NASA link:
"Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas"
Oh no! CO2? - don't think so! IPCC and Al Gore fails. Epicly. As exspected.
"Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas"
Oh no! CO2? - don't think so! IPCC and Al Gore fails. Epicly. As exspected.
Even so, carbon emissions from China and India have increased dramatically over the last few decades. "A cloudy day" is a little to over simplified to explain the cooling. Even the worlds best supercomputer models can't explain the interaction of clouds and climate. They cant figure out if clouds warm the world more by trapping heat in or cool it by reflecting heat into space. Perhaps you, being the intellectual superior to "the dumbest four year old", could explain it to the folks at NASA. The earth will warm, the earth will cool. I worry about searching for the answers in one solution. Carbon emissions is not the holy grail of adapting to our environment. We need a more comprehensive plan to address the climate. I have said before that there are many other reason to reduce pollution, but lets not ignore other relative facts involved in climate change.Spark wrote:
Interesting, Im'a look it up right now.
Hang on...Oh my fucking god.Rather than having clouds and water vapor amplifying the warming effect of carbon in the atmosphere, it turns out that they compensate for it.:
Epic fail.
The dumbest four-year-old knows that a cloudy day is COLDER than a sunny day...
Edit again. I just found this: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/enviro … rmest.html
Interesting. I suppose the above doubt about models doesn't apply. These are observations, and it's hard to fault them.
---
Third edit:
I think I may have an explanation for the 'plateau'... there was a pretty big El Nino in '98, followed by a few La Nina or neutral years. This would've lasted til about 03, 04, when the next big El Nino kicked in. That would've plateau'd it a bit - ENSO has a much, much, much bigger impact on climate variations on a short-term basis (though remember it should balance itself out: if it's not, then we have a big problem)
Xbone Stormsurgezz