Controversial new climate change results [Archive]

View Full Version : Controversial new climate change results

jiffy

13-11-2009, 02:12 PM

Only controversial because it is based on FACT not climate models

New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.
This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.

The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.

The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.

This work is extremely important for climate change policy, because emission targets to be negotiated at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen early next month have been based on projections that have a carbon free sink of already factored in. Some researchers have cautioned against this approach, pointing at evidence that suggests the sink has already started to decrease.

So is this good news for climate negotiations in Copenhagen? “Not necessarily”, says Knorr. “Like all studies of this kind, there are uncertainties in the data, so rather than relying on Nature to provide a free service, soaking up our waste carbon, we need to ascertain why the proportion being absorbed has not changed”.

Another result of the study is that emissions from deforestation might have been overestimated by between 18 and 75 per cent. This would agree with results published last week in Nature Geoscience by a team led by Guido van der Werf from VU University Amsterdam. They re-visited deforestation data and concluded that emissions have been overestimated by at least a factor of two.

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.html

jiffy

13-11-2009, 02:25 PM

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/12/article-1227228-072FA990000005DC-63_964x353_popup.jpg

giant iceberg that went walkabout... towards the coast of Australia

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1227228/Er--What-global-warming-Rare-iceberg-spotted-Australia.html#ixzz0WkXBOxeh

brossen99

13-11-2009, 03:33 PM

At least it looks like an alleged climate deal at Copenhagen is off for at least a year. Copenhagen is just an excuse for one massive stock market parasite investment scam robbing from the relatively poor to give to the rich eco-fascist promoters, no chance of any sustainable alleged " green jobs " apart from a few wealthy parasites fraudulently carbon trading. Eco-fascism is a greater threat to our relative basic human rights, ( to keep warm, dry and have a full belly ) the right to " free movement " within the UK than alleged Muslim fundamentalism and the terrorist threat will ever be.

Climate Change is probably almost all down to Sun Spot activity, CO2 is a minor detail, perhaps only " man's fingerprint ". The earth has got cooler overall more recently, look what a crap summer we had this year, worst winter in living memory in NZ, ice storms on the north coast of the north island. The summer arctic ice sheet has also grown significantly this year, despite the alleged climate scientists smashing through it with ice breakers allowing the sun to effect more local warming on the dark ocean.

andyh

13-11-2009, 03:47 PM

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/

Submarines at the pole with thin/almost non-existent ice 40 years ago...

the nine

13-11-2009, 03:53 PM

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/

Submarines at the pole with thin/almost non-existent ice 40 years ago...

very interesting, thanks for the post

jiffy

13-11-2009, 03:55 PM

trepidation

13-11-2009, 04:07 PM

elrafaargentino

13-11-2009, 04:52 PM

article in spanish: http://lucasraffablog.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/nuevos-datos-indican-que-el-equilibrio-entre-el-aire-y-la-fraccion-de-absorcion-de-dioxido-de-carbono-se-ha-mantenido-constante-desde-1850/

trix

13-11-2009, 05:17 PM

rollotomaz1

13-11-2009, 07:00 PM

Humans are hurting the world, just not in the ways they are describing. We really do need to smarten up and change our act, but the way they are going about it is almost comical. It is so misleading and ridiculous.

What really matters is, we need to take more care of the system as much as possible overall, the problems will only get out of control once the bottom of the food chain is wiped out, then the rest follows suit.

Acid oceans are 1000's of year away, by which time the catylist for making the pollution will have run out long since.

Food is the main product that we need, upset this supply route and we are all in danger of dieing out.

Higher absorbsion of ocean Co2 will enable the oil making algae to bloom like it does in certain place today, but if we poison the water this won't happen at a rate where we need to counteract what we are tipping into it.

On the pole ice, lets se how open the seas are this winter and next summer, to counteract Co2 all we need to do is plant an awful lot of trees, let face it most of the Uk and the planet was covered in theme once upon a time, trees are one of the planets natural lungs and I believe trees will be our salvation.

amaralsright

13-11-2009, 07:07 PM

to counteract Co2 all we need to do is plant an awful lot of trees,

If CO2 really is a problem then that is indeed a solution.

CO2 isn't a problem though.

However I would like to see more trees.

steevo

13-11-2009, 07:11 PM

If CO2 really is a problem then that is indeed a solution.

CO2 isn't a problem though.

However I would like to see more trees.

And the local councils seem to not like people to have trees in their gardens these days, from what I have seen.

amaralsright

13-11-2009, 07:16 PM

And the local councils seem to not like people to have trees in their gardens these days, from what I have seen.

Councils LOVE cutting down trees.

(Oh.. and leaving building illuminated at night).

Yeah.. they take it all very seriously.

jiffy

13-11-2009, 07:28 PM

Increased Co2 absorption by the oceans is pretty bad, the rising acidity threatens coral reef and other ocean life. I'm not sure how much absorption it would take for this to become a huge issue though.

I am afraid not, more propaganda afraid. I have a captive reef with hard/soft coral, invertebrate, fish ect.

The rise in acidity is NOT C02 led, is it pollution.

jiffy

13-11-2009, 07:39 PM

all we need to do is plant an awful lot of trees

Whilst I am no adverse to Trees, a tree is carbon neutral not a carbon scrum. More propaganda dreamed up by the likes of Gore.

Rich land owners get paid copious amounts of cash to plant trees to offset Carbon trading credits.

yes the whole shebang is win win for the wealthy

rollotomaz1

13-11-2009, 08:25 PM

Whilst I am no adverse to Trees, a tree is carbon neutral not a carbon scrum. More propaganda dreamed up by the likes of Gore.

Rich land owners get paid copious amounts of cash to plant trees to offset Carbon trading credits.

yes the whole shebang is win win for the wealthy

We would be much better of using wood than oil or gas for our heating, wood is self generating, paying someone to offset the carbon credit is a legal credit for doing next to nothing, those land owners should be made to plant those trees for free, grown them themselves, we won't be happy untill we have all the tree in the rain forests over here and all the trees we grown here over there, its a ridiculous passtime, which is wasting valuble fossile fuel doing it.

Isn't everything based and made from carbon atoms ?

angelthecat

13-11-2009, 08:45 PM

And the local councils seem to not like people to have trees in their gardens these days, from what I have seen.

maybe we should all grow hemp it obsorbs a lot more co2 that trees, yeilds a lot more paper, very efficient in ethanol prodution, seed oil is more abundant than Canola oil (could be again used as non co2 produtive biofuel) makes bio degradable plastics, cloth production and all the essential fatty acids needed for a healthy life,

but then again is this just another ruse to convince people that co2 is damaging the planet,they are clever but not that clever as to fool everyone
:cool:

kingmob

13-11-2009, 11:18 PM

jiffy

14-11-2009, 10:12 AM

BTW, the Glaciers that are melting are not melting due to climate getting warmer. They are melting due to the techtonic plate movement and increased activity under the ocean floor. The temperature has actually dropped worldwide by .7 degrees Celcius, and there is more snow in Antarktica than ever before.

I have a feeling though that the drop in temperature is actually man made, and that our temperature should be rising since the sun should be heating up and bombarding Earth with energy, but PTB are shielding the earth from that energy with all that they got. Charging the atmosphere with chemtrails to reflect back the radiation that is coming through, and prevent quicker awakening in us all.

This isn't true, last year was the coldest it had been for 50 years. This just happened to coincide with a Solar minimum, which we still haven't emerged from.

Some Solar physicist think that this could be the start of a long period of inactivity triggering a mini ice age like the mid 18 century.

Others of course believe it could well go the other way, culminating in mega solar activity by 2012:eek:

The whole greenhouse/chemtrail thing being able to warm the planet doesn't wash with me. As an Engineers I see things logically.

There is no substance that I know of that can be put in the Ionosphere that will only allow heat one way! After all if this gas reflex heat back onto the planet, logic says it will reflex heat away from the planet.

Which is why Ionosphere temperatures have remain constant, it is also why the IPCC report mentions nothing about the true temperature of the planet. The Ionosphere.

Measuring ground temperature is yet another example of Pseudoscience used to manipulate the "facts".

One example
NY city has some of the most reliable historical ground temperature reading. According to the Pseudoscience, NY has risen something like 1.5 degrees in the last 100 years. They have allowed .7 a degree for Urban heat. Yet if you travel 150 miles out of NY (away from mass buildings) the same period of temperature readings have fallen.

So a city that has grown 10 fold, has millions more people. Concrete building, tarmac road, central heating in every building. millions of cars. Yet they only allow 0.7 of a degree.
Pseudoscience

wakeup2nwo

14-11-2009, 10:49 AM

rollotomaz1

14-11-2009, 02:54 PM

This isn't true, last year was the coldest it had been for 50 years. This just happened to coincide with a Solar minimum, which we still haven't emerged from.

Some Solar physicist think that this could be the start of a long period of inactivity triggering a mini ice age like the mid 18 century.

Others of course believe it could well go the other way, culminating in mega solar activity by 2012:eek:

The whole greenhouse/chemtrail thing being able to warm the planet doesn't wash with me. As an Engineers I see things logically.

There is no substance that I know of that can be put in the Ionosphere that will only allow heat one way! After all if this gas reflex heat back onto the planet, logic says it will reflex heat away from the planet.

Which is why Ionosphere temperatures have remain constant, it is also why the IPCC report mentions nothing about the true temperature of the planet. The Ionosphere.

Measuring ground temperature is yet another example of Pseudoscience used to manipulate the "facts".

One example
NY city has some of the most reliable historical ground temperature reading. According to the Pseudoscience, NY has risen something like 1.5 degrees in the last 100 years. They have allowed .7 a degree for Urban heat. Yet if you travel 150 miles out of NY (away from mass buildings) the same period of temperature readings have fallen.

So a city that has grown 10 fold, has millions more people. Concrete building, tarmac road, central heating in every building. millions of cars. Yet they only allow 0.7 of a degree.
Pseudoscience

My freinds wife is one of the recorders that regulary take readings from their own gardens and then phone or send it the days, weeks, months years physical readings.

Her findings at home have actually cooled by almost a degree sine 1995, the same trend is also being shown throughout Britain, yet these figures are not shown to the public who are sending in the information in the first place.

It looks like we are definately cooling, a ten year study is much more reliable than a satellite because it is actually physical.

jiffy

14-11-2009, 05:23 PM

My freinds wife is one of the recorders that regulary take readings from their own gardens and then phone or send it the days, weeks, months years physical readings.

Her findings at home have actually cooled by almost a degree sine 1995, the same trend is also being shown throughout Britain, yet these figures are not shown to the public who are sending in the information in the first place.

It looks like we are definately cooling, a ten year study is much more reliable than a satellite because it is actually physical.

Interesting, it she urban, rural, very built up ect?

jiffy

14-11-2009, 05:31 PM

Chuck Norris: Copenhagen Talks To Forge “One World Order”

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Thursday, Nov 12, 2009

TV star and political commentator Chuck Norris has voiced concerns that the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, beginning December 7, represents an attempt to further an agenda to create a “one world order” at the expense of national sovereignty.

WATCH THE VIDEO http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=GdqGnzIr6U

Thanks for that, he is bang on the money China and India aren't going to buy that BS.
I think it is also easy to get dragged into the MSM version of Global warming. Lets not forget there are Thousands of PHD's out there that don't buy it either.
The Scientific community I believe, won't remain silent forever;)

kingmob

14-11-2009, 06:38 PM

This isn't true, last year was the coldest it had been for 50 years. This just happened to coincide with a Solar minimum, which we still haven't emerged from.

Some Solar physicist think that this could be the start of a long period of inactivity triggering a mini ice age like the mid 18 century.

Others of course believe it could well go the other way, culminating in mega solar activity by 2012:eek:

The whole greenhouse/chemtrail thing being able to warm the planet doesn't wash with me. As an Engineers I see things logically.

There is no substance that I know of that can be put in the Ionosphere that will only allow heat one way! After all if this gas reflex heat back onto the planet, logic says it will reflex heat away from the planet.

Which is why Ionosphere temperatures have remain constant, it is also why the IPCC report mentions nothing about the true temperature of the planet. The Ionosphere.

Measuring ground temperature is yet another example of Pseudoscience used to manipulate the "facts".

One example
NY city has some of the most reliable historical ground temperature reading. According to the Pseudoscience, NY has risen something like 1.5 degrees in the last 100 years. They have allowed .7 a degree for Urban heat. Yet if you travel 150 miles out of NY (away from mass buildings) the same period of temperature readings have fallen.

So a city that has grown 10 fold, has millions more people. Concrete building, tarmac road, central heating in every building. millions of cars. Yet they only allow 0.7 of a degree.
Pseudoscience

Um, you failed to notice that I pointed out that the planet's overall temperature has dropped by .7 degrees. And if you don't know of a substance that reflects radiation back, doesn't mean there isn't one. Your knowledge here is very limited.

You are also misunderstading that they sun does not need to be working in overdrive, or going through an increased solar activity to emmit additional radiation.

"In 2005, Long’s team published a study in the journal Science showing that Earth experienced a period of “solar global dimming” from 1960 to 1990, during which time solar radiation hitting our planet’s surface decreased. Then from the mid-1990’s onward, the trend reversed and Earth experienced a “solar brightening.”

These changes were not likely driven by fluctuations in the output of the Sun, Long explained, but rather increases in atmospheric clouds or aerosols that reflected solar radiation back into space."

andyh

14-11-2009, 06:58 PM

Tree ring data completely b0rked..
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/

jiffy

14-11-2009, 11:14 PM

Um, you failed to notice that I pointed out that the planet's overall temperature has dropped by .7 degrees. And if you don't know of a substance that reflects radiation back, doesn't mean there isn't one. Your knowledge here is very limited.

You are also misunderstading that they sun does not need to be working in overdrive, or going through an increased solar activity to emmit additional radiation.

"In 2005, Long’s team published a study in the journal Science showing that Earth experienced a period of “solar global dimming” from 1960 to 1990, during which time solar radiation hitting our planet’s surface decreased. Then from the mid-1990’s onward, the trend reversed and Earth experienced a “solar brightening.”

These changes were not likely driven by fluctuations in the output of the Sun, Long explained, but rather increases in atmospheric clouds or aerosols that reflected solar radiation back into space."

Not a case of misunderstanding that is long's "theory"

There are countless Solar Physicist would disagree. They would argue and indeed win lots of money predicting long term weather forecasts, that there is a direct correlation between solar activity and temperatures.

I have not read anywhere that the sun admits more heat without additional activity. Unless it is in a very long term trend. Even then there isn't evidence to prove if the sun was in a maximum or not, there are no records.

As for the .7 degree drop (depends which papers you read I am afraid)

As I explained in my other post, ground temp reading is IMHO Pseudoscience. If there was a substantial warming or cooling globally (which is the key). This would be reflected in the atmosphere to which it isn't.

Last point regarding a substance reflecting radiation (ie heat) I have no doubt that there is a substance that can reflect radiation (heat) but there is no way I am buying there is a substance that only reflects one way not that can be put into the atmosphere.

If there was, they would be using to warm the planet to further there "global warming agenda"

jiffy

14-11-2009, 11:25 PM

Tree ring data completely b0rked..
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/

Nice find thanks;)

rollotomaz1

15-11-2009, 12:38 AM

Interesting, it she urban, rural, very built up ect?

She lives in North Yorkshire and rural, about 600 feet above sea level.

Our other freinds live same area 1000 feet above with very similar results.

We are definately cooling and have been steadily for the last 10 years she says.

andyh

15-11-2009, 01:03 AM

Nice find thanks;)

It's more than a good find, it's a complete refutation by reputable individuals of the tree ring data.
The data was obviously cherry picked. It remains to be seen just how much longer this can be ignored.

tjohn

15-11-2009, 01:35 AM

andyh

15-11-2009, 01:45 AM

That's not a valid argument against global warming at all. With airborne CO2 being a fraction of absorbed CO2 even if the balance remains the same, airborne CO2 rises as emissions rise.

Besides, methane from animals bred for food is about 20 times more of a greenhouse gas than CO2 and animal agriculture produces more than 100 million tons of methane a year and unlike CO2 which can remain in the air for more than a century, methane cycles out of the atmosphere in just eight years so lower methane emissions more quickly translate into reducing global warming.
http://www.earthsave.org/globalwarming.htm

Do the sum 20 x 100 million and from that alone we see that breading animals for food is a real problem in regard to global warming. Now I am not saying that global warming is not part of a natural cycle but without a doubt, what humans are doing (both in the fuels we use and the food we eat) is accelerating it.

Unfortunately some cannot or refuse to see this, so it becomes what is know as a false dilemma or dichotomy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma/)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichotomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichotomy/)

You could take things a step further and state that the greatest greenhouse gas of all is water vapour :p

It's funny that you quote wikipedia there, yet the same source actually states that methane is NOT as great a greenhouse gas as CO2 ;)

Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

* water vapor, which contributes 36–72%
* carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%
* methane, which contributes 4–9%
* ozone, which contributes 3–7%

Cleaner burning cars by the way release more water vapour...oh dear :D

tjohn

15-11-2009, 02:07 AM

She lives in North Yorkshire and rural, about 600 feet above sea level.

Our other freinds live same area 1000 feet above with very similar results. We are definately cooling and have been steadily for the last 10 years she says.I live in Yorkshire too and I'm now over 60 years old. When I was a kid in winter we had snow up to our knees but now we hardly see snow - a few inches at most. Ask any older person and they would say the same.

tjohn

15-11-2009, 02:13 AM

You could take things a step further and state that the greatest greenhouse gas of all is water vapour :p

It's funny that you quote wikipedia there, yet the same source actually states that methane is NOT as great a greenhouse gas as CO2 ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

* water vapor, which contributes 36–72%
* carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%
* methane, which contributes 4–9%
* ozone, which contributes 3–7%

Cleaner burning cars by the way release more water vapour...oh dear :DWell, it depends on who wrote that Wiki article and what their agenda is. People don't like the idea of using less oil now do they. Nor do most people like the idea of giving up eating meat.

In regard to water vapour by far the most comes off the sea and what cars would produce is (excuse the pun) but a drop in the ocean.

andyh

15-11-2009, 02:41 AM

Well, it depends on who wrote that Wiki article and what their agenda is. People don't like the idea of using less oil now do they. Nor do most people like the idea of giving up eating meat.

It's a well known fact that water vapour is by far the greatest greenhouse gas of all. Yet it is hardly given a mention.
This alone is enough to label everything else a load of rubbish.
We do pollute this planet alright, but CO2 is the least of our problems compared to consumerism.
Taxing people will obviously not solve anything as govt has proven themselves time and again to be incapable of managing a p*ss up in a brewery, not to mention said money to pay said taxes comes from the bloody central banks who have the nerve to print it and then charge an interest on it which only serves to perpetuate the madness by making us all work that bit harder, producing more and consuming more year after year after year.
You're not going to solve this nightmare by eating vegetables and paying carbon tax.
We would actually start to use alternatives IF WE HAD A FREE MARKET. But we do not. As far as energy goes it is a giant cartel. So instead of govt making any headway on alternatives they decide to tax us all as we're all just stupid imbeciles who swallow this crap.
Corporations do not pay tax, average joe on the street who has a job pays tax.
We're hardly going to stop using oil if there's no alternative offered. Sure there's a bike but it's not exactly practical for everyone but then again transport is only a part of what oil is used for, there's a huge use for it in manufacturing,pharmaceuticals and power generation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm

"But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. "

The tree data has been cherry picked, the BBC themselves admit no temp increase for the past 11 years.

There will not be any huge temp increases and metre upon metre of sea rise at any time in the near future, this FACT alone is enough to peeve me off at the sheer scale of this alarmism but it serves to divert attention away from what really ills this planet, which is a deliberate dismantling of our economic system and a worldwide political movement towards authoritarianism.

If you live in an area where flooding is likely then instead of moaning about sea level rises you should really bloody move lol.
If we really cared about the environment then loads of people would be telecommuting instead of driving into work each day or sitting on the train/bus.
By doing this you are merely subsidizing the business you work for, just like having a company car is most certainly NOT a benefit. It's a benefit for the company who get tax relief for it's purchase and value but it's of no use to the employee if he has to pay a 15% value tax on the blasted thing.
If we really cared about the environment we would be making things last longer and repairing them...not offering thousands of pounds/euros to scrap a car on trade-in as shedloads of CO2 are released every time a new car is made!
The whole system is upside down and back to front.

tjohn

15-11-2009, 02:42 AM

http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/07/no-warming-since-1998-get-real-deniers/

No warming since 1998? Get real, deniers!

(http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/07/no-warming-since-1998-get-real-deniers/) January 7, 2008

Honestly, if anyone tells you “For nearly a decade now, there has been no global warming” (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/) — as this Boston Globe columnist and some commenters on this blog have — they simply are not interested in seriously trying to understand and deal with the gravest problem facing humanity. They deserve the label “global warming denier” for willfully trying to confuse the public debate.

Let’s look at the data, from NASA presented last month:Through the first 11 months, 2007 is the second warmest year in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean has entered the cool phase of its natural El Niño — La Niña cycle. (http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/mailings/20071210_GISTEMP.pdf)
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/nasa-2007.jpg (http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/nasa-2007.jpg)
Figure (a) Annual surface temperature anomaly relative to 1951-1980 mean, based on surface air measurements at meteorological stations and ship and satellite measurements of sea surface temperature; the 2007 point is the 11-month anomaly. [Green error bar is estimated 2σ uncertainty....]

Yes, in some global datasets — not NASA’s however — 1998 is still the peak year because that year we had global warming PLUS the warm phase of the natural El Niño — La Niña cycle. But guess what, deniers? Climate change is about a change in the “climate.” A single year doesn’t make the climate, that’s why people use a running average — in order to show the trend. Duh!

NASA points out:The six warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 15 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1988.
That would be a trend, as the figure above shows. All those who say there’s been no warming since 1998, you should be happy to take a $1000 bet against the claim that this decade will be warmer than the last one, and that the next decade will be even warmer. Heck, I’ll give you 2-to-1 odds. Anyone who won’t take such a generous bet — you really deserve even odds if you are serious about what you are saying, like the Globe writer who claims we’re actually going to start global cooling — is just trying to confuse the public debate with rhetoric they don’t even really believe themselves. And that is the very definition of a global warming denier.

By the way deniers, when one of the next five years turns out to be the hottest on record in all the datasets, which is very likely barring a major volcano — will you admit you were wrong and the planet is warming due to rising human-generated emissions of carbon dioxide as predicted by the scientific community? Somehow, I think not.

(http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/07/no-warming-since-1998-get-real-deniers/)
Share
(http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/07/no-warming-since-1998-get-real-deniers/) http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/plugins/wp-print/images/printer_famfamfam.gif (http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/07/no-warming-since-1998-get-real-deniers/print/) Print (http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/07/no-warming-since-1998-get-real-deniers/print/) This entry was posted by Joe (http://climateprogress.org/author/joe/) on Monday, January 7th, 2008 at 12:49 pm and is filed under Extreme Weather (http://climateprogress.org/category/extreme-weather/), Science (http://climateprogress.org/category/science/). You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 (http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/07/no-warming-since-1998-get-real-deniers/feed/) feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

18 Responses to “No warming since 1998? Get real, deniers!”

Paul K (http://itsfunny.biz/) says:
January 7, 2008 at 4:34 pm (http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/07/no-warming-since-1998-get-real-deniers/#comment-7905)
Joe,
I hope your increasing desire to wager thousands of dollars on climate predictions isn’t a sign of a gambling problem. You might also ask the lawyers at the progress center about the propriety of soliciting bets on the internet. Just kidding.
The graph shows a consistent warming trend from 1975 to 1998 and a leveling off since then. It is warmer than it was. It is still warmer than it was. Nothing in the graph indicates it it getting cooler. The British Met office has a slightly different graph. Their’s shows 2005 not quite as warm. NASA originally did too, but they adjusted their analysis higher.
Joe (http://climateprogress.org/) says:
January 7, 2008 at 5:49 pm (http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/07/no-warming-since-1998-get-real-deniers/#comment-7907)
As you know from the original NASA post, we’re in a down-cycle of solar activity and a La Nina. As Hansen says, barring a volcano, we’ll see the warmest year ever within 5 years.
hippie with a pistol says:
January 7, 2008 at 8:34 pm (http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/07/no-warming-since-1998-get-real-deniers/#comment-7910)
Joe has AGAIN been caught misrepresenting the solar radiation record. From his post you get the impression that TSI is at a minimum over an extended time frame. But that’s not the case.
Although were are entering a solar minimum Dr Judith Lean has found that there is overall increasing solar activity during this century. She has reported that TSI during recent solar maximums has been higher than at any time in the past 4 centuries.
Dr Kopp at SORCE notes that an estimated increase of 0.04% would induce appreciable climate change if it persists for a sufficient number of solar cycles.
Since the Maunder Minimum solar energy has slowly increased over each subsiquent 11-year solar cycle.
Furthermore, Dr Judith Lean finds that solar forcing is greater than previously expected:
In the recent report, “The Sun Approaches Its 11 Year Minimum and Activity Cycle 24″
“Climate response to decadal solar forcing has previously been expected to be too small to be detected. (Scientists reasoned that the amount of change caused by solar forcing would be too small to change the ocean temperatures significantly—i.e., any change would be dampened by the ocean’s thermal inertia.) However, recent empirical results associating decadal solar variability and climate contradict this expectation, and recent studies are beginning to shed light on how this may take place.”
Joe (http://climateprogress.org/) says:
January 7, 2008 at 11:56 pm (http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/07/no-warming-since-1998-get-real-deniers/#comment-7913)
Nothing has been more disproven than solar cycles being the major cause of recent warming. It is now tinfoil hat stuff. Spend some time on realclimate. Seriously!
Ronald says:
January 8, 2008 at 11:13 am (http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/07/no-warming-since-1998-get-real-deniers/#comment-7916)
The way I look at it is, the carbon dioxide levels increases in the atmosphere are not enough to overcome any one year’s weather and weather patterns, but over time when we have increased the carbon dioxide enough, it will overcome individual years weather to greater than we have now.
According to this web site:
http://www.carbonify.com/carbon-dioxide-levels.htm
The co2 level was 365 parts per million in the atmosphere in 1998. (in November) In 2007 the co2 level was 382 parts per million which is a difference of 17 parts per million. This level is apparently not enough to overcome some differences is weather that can occur from a year to the next few years. 1998 was a year for a warmer weather pattern then the years after it.
But when the levels of carbon dioxide get up to 400, 450 and 500 parts per million and then add in time, to change the earth by maybe melting the arctic ice and other changes, then the extra carbon dioxide does overcome any one years weather. We then have shifted to another climate.
Same thing happens with alcohol. If I have a few drinks, it still might not be enough to overcome my driving skills. But if I keep on drinking, as hard as I might try, I can’t stay the same in physical or mental responses. Add enough carbon dioxide, and any favorable weather pattern won’t make our world cooler. We’ll be in a different warmer climate.
Erl Happ says:
January 8, 2008 at 11:26 am (http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/07/no-warming-since-1998-get-real-deniers/#comment-7917)
You’re on Joe. Two to one on $1000. Great odds. ‘this decade will be warmer than the last one’ is what you are saying. Can we make the judgement in 2018? Its solar cycle 24 that will bring the chill, starting as of now. Index for inflation?
Jay Alt says:
January 8, 2008 at 3:00 pm (http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/07/no-warming-since-1998-get-real-deniers/#comment-7924)
Hippie, you are a funnyman.
Dr. Judith Lean of NRL served as an author on the IPCC’s Scientific Basis report.
And that chapter, which dealt with Solar Forcing, lowers the estimate of total solar irradiance (TSI) changes (over long periods) compared to the previous IPCC report (2001).
They lowered the TSI estimates by a factor of 2 to 4. And the reference used to justify that drop is a paper by Judith Lean.
Dano says:
January 8, 2008 at 4:04 pm (http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/07/no-warming-since-1998-get-real-deniers/#comment-7929)
Joe,
you should take your (likely) winnings from rubes like Erl and give them to charity, rather than keeping them for yourself, as this is akin to candy-from-babies.
Jus’ sayin’
Best,
D
Paul K (http://itsfunny.biz/) says:
January 8, 2008 at 4:30 pm (http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/07/no-warming-since-1998-get-real-deniers/#comment-7930)
Ronald,
Absent forcings and feedbacks a doubling of CO2 ppm yields a 1.2C temperature rise. The actual rise depends on the effect of forcings and feedbacks which is the area of climate science where there are still a lot of unknowns. What is known is that climate, even without any influence by man, is neither static nor linear.
Ronald says:
January 8, 2008 at 7:15 pm (http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/07/no-warming-since-1998-get-real-deniers/#comment-7933)
Paul K,
You’re right about the complicated forcings and feedbacks. I wasn’t trying to describe anything to complicated. This discussion actually came up in a bar a couple of weeks ago and that’s the explaination I gave. I hope I wasn’t to far off.
The co2 sensitivity I try to give people is that at this website:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm
Frankly I haven’t followed the discussion that sorts all that out, and I don’t want to spend all the time that does it would take to sort it out. I pretty much accept the idea that we have to reduce co2 as well as the other human caused greenhouse gases emissions and leave the heavy lifting to the big boys.
Joe (http://climateprogress.org/) says:
January 8, 2008 at 11:45 pm (http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/07/no-warming-since-1998-get-real-deniers/#comment-7935)
Erl — you’re on. You tell me what two consecutive 10-year periods you’d like to compare. The bet is off if there is a major volcano in the next decades. I’d also like to know a bit more about you. You have a blog or social networking site or something?
Michel Lauzon says:
March 8, 2008 at 12:09 pm (http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/07/no-warming-since-1998-get-real-deniers/#comment-9282)
The best proof that the human are creating the global warming with fossile fuels is that Exxon’s budget for disinformation rises faster then the CO2.
The British Royal Society publicly denounced Exxon for funding 6 or 7 scientific organisations to disinform, mitigate or contradict the consensus.
Exxon said it stoped doing that and increased it’s payments to pseudo-scientific prostitutes http://climateprogress.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif .
The number of tornadoes as a function of time is a freightening exponential curve. There were in 1999 around 18 times more tornadoes on the US ground then in 1915. Later data was censured by Bush in 2000.
Even worst is the “Global Equivalent Intellectual Quotient” wich started to fall when G.W. H. Bush first invaded Iraq. From a record of 100 (in constant 1990 Neurones) it went down at a rate of -50 % per decade.
It is estimated that with less neurones humans could work without any gaz masks or O2 bottles in an environement of 1000 to 5000 PPMs.
What is great is that the neurones decline timing with the CO2 rise and the temperature exactly perfect to prevent perception of it’s reality thus reducing the need for disinformation budgets. Limbics brains reprogramming by Zionists leaders will also be easier to reprogram them and even raise taxes to pay fictive national debts to the private Federal Reserve in the USA and other central banks in the world.
Zionist bankers are thus teaming with petrolum companies and now weapons contractors in an effort to accelerate the SPP, NAU and NWO. Politicians find their share.
We lost 20% of the ice cap between 2006 and 2007, we hit a discontinuity in the curve and are now to the equivalent of the IPCC “pessimist” prediction for 2035.
I have heard that they “forgot” to include a little effect or 2 or 3 in their models : ice reflects 90% of the solar energy but when a portion melts water then absorbs 90% of this 1.36 Kw per square meter. Thus water temperature rose 0.6 C within a few years.
I won’t be fooled by mathematics and modeling, I have done it all my life and for me the IPCC is just under heavy pressure from their governments to pretend they are stupid.
The temperature rise in the north of Canada is fantastically fast. Permafrost is disapearing very rapidly and you will understand that it will outgas a fantastic amount of methane wich is 20 to 35 more potent then CO2 for reflecting back the infrared back to us.
The amount of lies in the numbers freigthens anybody so they simply hide the real information when they don’t cheat it. They constantly swap units and areas in order to mask the changes.
Why so much lies ? Is it a sign that the elders in power think they can sustain a lie because changes will be so fast that we will die before we can guess it ?
Many of the paid disinformation agents are the same who lied for the tobacco industry. All these liars share one thing : a profit for wars and human disappearance from the surface of the earth to be replaced by a Zionist elite totally unconcerned about the “inferior” humans.
Some say we are at 394 ppm of CO2, some say 385, some 394 ppm CO2e… I am willing to bet we will bust 400 ppm much sooner then any prediction. If I apply the usual error factor it could even be in 2008.
The truth is that there is no truth. Truth became a comodity and was bought by a monopole of liars to destroy what was left of it.
96% of the medias are controlled by 6 or 7 zionists, right ?
Todd says:
September 18, 2008 at 12:04 pm (http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/07/no-warming-since-1998-get-real-deniers/#comment-19262)
Its amazing that you are so scared of global warming. I am always amazed at you alarmists.
Are you so pessimistic on human innovation? Do you realize where science and technology was 100 years ago and where we will be when these models are predicting these ‘catastrophic’ events?
Are you afraid that adaptation isn’t possible?
I understand that it is entirely possible that your feable brain can’t comprehend the technology of the future and human’s innate ability to adapt to the environment.
I am not sure your education but based on this article I would assume you have spent no time in climate modelling. It is a very intense and complicated science that is far from perfect. You and the other alarmists assume and take these predictions as given. You are wrong.
You honestly disgust me. If you truly want to save the planet, go ahead and off yourself. That would certainly eliminate the carbon dioxide you produce daily.
fostert says:
November 25, 2008 at 8:37 pm (http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/07/no-warming-since-1998-get-real-deniers/#comment-23003)
“Are you afraid that adaptation isn’t possible?”
I am. When most of Bangladesh is under water, are the Bangladeshis going to evolve to be able to breathe underwater? And will their crops do so as well? I don’t think so. Maybe they could build levees along their entire coastline, but where will they get the money to do that? They are poor, and we don’t care. The fact is that they will adapt, but they will do so by moving somewhere else. But what country wants to absorb 100 million refugees? Unfortunately, the solution to that issue will be political, not scientific. And political solutions rarely ever work. Ask yourself this: how many Bangladeshi refugees are you willing to let live in your house? Are you willing to make that adaptation? If you aren’t, than yes, adaptation will be impossible.
Richard Mercer (http://energysolutionswecanbelievein.blogspot.com/) says:
December 9, 2008 at 12:51 am (http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/07/no-warming-since-1998-get-real-deniers/#comment-24170)
Todd
What’s amazing is that anyone can be foolish enough to think it is all about us humans. You think we live in a protective biosphere all our own and it doesn’t matter that we are destroying the environment that you suggest we adapt to.
It’s the environment that can’t adapt fast enough to what we do. If the ecosystems collapse, man is done for. The enviroment is not separate from us. That is a concept that is not understood by many who criticize environmentalists.
Whatever we do to the environment, we do to ourselves. Is that clear?
What’s truly amazing is that anyone’s gut instinct wouldn’t tell them that spewing a gas into the atmosphere to the point of upsetting the balance of gases there, would NOT have some unwanted consequences. It’s common sense, irrespective of the science.
Jason says:
February 17, 2009 at 1:07 pm (http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/07/no-warming-since-1998-get-real-deniers/#comment-30044)
Just passing through after a Google search brought me here.
Read through the post and several comments. What’s truly amazing in this discussion is how the original author and several of those who left comments afterward think that snotty, childish remarks like “duh,” “tinfoil hats,” and “deniers” constitute a strong, reasoned, and cogent argument. Neither side is winning converts with the constant trash talk.
This issue is supposed to be about the strength of science and reason, not religious fervor, your hurt feelings, and immaturity.
Chris says:
March 13, 2009 at 10:44 am (http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/07/no-warming-since-1998-get-real-deniers/#comment-32422)
you AGW nuts really need to pull your head out of the sand. If any of you had actually gone to the NASA website that has teh temperature trend graph shown at the top of this link you would have also seen the following chart:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig2a.gif
which shows a far less convincing set dataset. From this link it is hard to see any warming since 1998. Just saying it, or in your cases, pounding your fists while saying it, dosen’t make it so.
Common Sense Joe says:
October 19, 2009 at 9:45 pm (http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/07/no-warming-since-1998-get-real-deniers/#comment-167141)
Just wondering if you are still taking wagers? BTW, How will you decide if it is warmer? Since global warming is now “climate change”, the extremists always have a way out. Will you try to get out of the bet if a volcano explodes? Since C02 is the supposed cause, considering how much more CO2 there will be in the air in the future, how high will the temperatures have to be not to be just a fluctuation in the natural cycle?

tjohn

15-11-2009, 03:07 AM

It's a well known fact that water vapour is by far the greatest greenhouse gas of all. Yet it is hardly given a mention.
This alone is enough to label everything else a load of rubbish. No its not. You never heard of tipping the balance or the straw that broke a camel's back?

andyh

15-11-2009, 03:36 AM

No its not. You never heard of tipping the balance or the straw that broke a camel's back?

What consequences on what kind of timescale do you expect here? And where is your evidence for this prophecy of doom?
Do you expect that eating veg and taxes will solve it given your answers to the other questions above?

rydeon

15-11-2009, 03:44 AM

Humans are hurting the world, just not in the ways they are describing. We really do need to smarten up and change our act, but the way they are going about it is almost comical. It is so misleading and ridiculous.

Yes the humans that are in charge of all this climate change garbage are indeed hurting the other humans who can see what a pile of codswallop it really is!

rydeon

15-11-2009, 03:51 AM

I live in Yorkshire too and I'm now over 60 years old. When I was a kid in winter we had snow up to our knees but now we hardly see snow - a few inches at most. Ask any older person and they would say the same.

And it was also much warmer in ancient Briton when the Romans came along and grew vines along Hadrians Wall.
It is much colder now and I'd ditch what the so-called 'scientists' say and go on instinct.

tjohn

15-11-2009, 07:41 AM

And it was also much warmer in ancient Briton when the Romans came along and grew vines along Hadrians Wall.
It is much colder now and I'd ditch what the so-called 'scientists' say and go on instinct.I don't deny a natural cycle.

tjohn

15-11-2009, 08:02 AM

What consequences on what kind of timescale do you expect here? And where is your evidence for this prophecy of doom?
Do you expect that eating veg and taxes will solve it given your answers to the other questions above?I expect that if we cut down on emissions it wouldn't be accelerating as fast and it wouldn't go as high as it would by the natural cycle without us adding to it. Make sense?

It seems obvious to me but as I previously said, Unfortunately some cannot or refuse to see this, so it becomes what is know as a false dilemma or dichotomy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichotomy

tjohn

15-11-2009, 08:53 AM

Whilst I am no adverse to Trees, a tree is carbon neutral not a carbon scrum. More propaganda dreamed up by the likes of Gore.

Rich land owners get paid copious amounts of cash to plant trees to offset Carbon trading credits.

yes the whole shebang is win win for the wealthyI'm not trying to argue for the sake of it but what you said about trees being carbon neutral isn't right. Green plants use carbon to make carbohydrates through photosynthesis. If they didn't they wouldn't grow.

http://www.carbs-information.com/synthesis-of-carbohydrates.htmCarbohydrates (comprising carbon and water) are sugar compounds which are manufactured or "synthesized" by green plants (and other organisms) when exposed to light. This carbohydrate manufacturing process is called photosynthesis after the Latin words "photo" meaning light and "synthesis" meaning putting together.

tjohn

15-11-2009, 09:29 AM

You could take things a step further and state that the greatest greenhouse gas of all is water vapour :p

It's funny that you quote wikipedia there, yet the same source actually states that methane is NOT as great a greenhouse gas as CO2 ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

* water vapor, which contributes 36–72%
* carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%
* methane, which contributes 4–9%
* ozone, which contributes 3–7%

Cleaner burning cars by the way release more water vapour...oh dear :DIn regard to cleaner burning cars releasing more water vapour I would think that we get a very tiny bit more rain. Hey Andy, when I answered your post before I didn't answer you right, sorry about that. Because of what you said (and did not say) and because I didn't bother to read it myself, I assumed that Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia was biased against the idea that humans are contributing to global warming.

Oh and you forgot to mention that the Wikipedia article says: Human activities since the start of the industrial era (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_revolution) around 1750 have increased the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

andyh

15-11-2009, 10:39 AM

I expect that if we cut down on emissions it wouldn't be accelerating as fast and it wouldn't go as high as it would by the natural cycle without us adding to it. Make sense?

It seems obvious to me but as I previously said,

It makes sense that it might perhaps reduce the damage but the question is what damage is there, what actually caused it was CO2 increase perhaps as a result of temp increase as per the current model clearly shows in the past?

Most important of all though, how do you expect taxation to solve this so called "problem" and is there not something more important for politicians to be doing right now?

Also when exactly do you expect there to be large sea level rises or catastrophic weather?

This last question has never been answered properly, the IPCC have downward revised their temperature projections again and again, they expect around 0.4C in 100 years.

If you live in parts of Holland then there may be something to worry about but that has always been the case, we made it possible to live there by artificial means, just as we have built in areas that are prone to bad weather anyway often with wooden housing.

Would perhaps a warmer world actually be a benefit!?

There's too much pseudoscience going on here for my liking, we have so far had tree ring data proven to be false
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/

We have had the BBC admit there has been no warming for the past 11 years
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm

And we have watched as politicians jumped onto this whole issue and made a farce out of it.

Then we have over 30,000 scientists including some very reputable phd's and ex IPCC members refute AGW
http://www.petitionproject.org/

http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_images/Seitz_Letter_100.png

jiffy

15-11-2009, 11:36 AM

jiffy

15-11-2009, 11:52 AM

As you seem to like quotes here are some:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.”
- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.

“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S GovernmentAtmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact,as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs,who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the
U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.

“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” - Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American
Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.

“Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” - South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed
publications.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” -Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

I have lots more about 600:eek: Just google some of these people and read there papers......then come back to me;)

jiffy

15-11-2009, 12:02 PM

Most important of all though, how do you expect taxation to solve this so called "problem"

Bang on the money;)

Carbon Trading now their is a scam, head up by the Pope of the religion..... Al Gore.

The man that promoted unprecedented growth under Clinton, then saw the light and had the calling, not from the Environment movement, but from the stupidity of people to make him a Carbon Billionaire:rolleyes:

tjohn

15-11-2009, 03:34 PM

I have no intention of quoting all that is wrong in what you have written, suffice to say that it is amazing how one person can cherry pick so much information.

Tree's are pretty much carbon neutral, the amount of extra carbon they use to grow is more or less off set by the amount they excel. If I had a penny for every time I heard that one. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: So where did you cherry pick that information from? How many tones of trees are there on the earth and how do they grow?

Look up photosynthesis it's elementary school knowledge and a scientific fact and photosynthesis uses CO2 from the atmosphere.

Then what becomes of a tree when it is burnt? CO2 and when there's not enough oxygen for the fire CO (carbon monoxide) as well and guess what? We also get charcoal = (mainly) carbon.

And guess what, trees and other vegetation after being buried for thousands of years under pressure, turn into coal which contains carbon (that's why coal is black!) as well as hydrocarbons (oils and so on) instead of the carbohydrates which was the case with the live plant.

Yet you say that trees are more or less carbon neutral. :rolleyes: :p and I say you cherry pick your knowledge because you do not know the very basics of science.

I love the comment about when I was a lad, if I had a penny for every time I heard that one. :rolleyes:

I take it you are aware that 1872 was the coldest year for 10,000 years? hence why the graph that NASA so "conveniently" produced starts in 1880 :rolleyes: So in 1872 was an ice age more than the span of 10,000 years ago? Who are you trying to kid?

So today's temperatures are being compared to the coldest the planet has been for 10,000 year, hence why when you were a lad there was snow every year, we are coming out of a mini ice age!!!!

How about we go back a little longer when temperatures were 1.5 degrees warmer(?)
Or the ice age.
Or when the planet froze then thawed 7 times in 7 thousand years, meaning you had to have changes in temperatures of 1.7 degrees in one persons life span!!So now we have a thousand year cycle - first I heard of it.

The link that was provided "PROVING" the tree ring cores was a scam, means nothing to you? If the evidence is SO overwhelming then why cook the figures.Why indeed cook the figures?

You will be well aware of "Manns Hockey stick", which is again a load of nonsense. The data used is now "PROVEN" to be all wrong. SO WHERE IS THE REBUTTAL!!! Sorry but I have not heard of "Manns Hockey stick".

Here is a another question did you ever look at that hockey stick and not ask the question, where is the medieval warming period, where is the mini ice age of 18[th] century?You tell me! Or when the planet froze then thawed 7 times in 7 thousand years.. Good question. Yet, so what?
Little Ice Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html
You still have not address the TWO MOST IMPORTANT QUESTIONS.

Why if the planet is warming GLOBALLY is the atmosphere temperature not changing?It is. It changes every year, sometimes it goes up and sometimes it goes down but what is the over all average?
How can a greenhouse gas reflect heat back to the planet yet not reflect heat away from the planet (ie the sun)It does both. Suppose you were covered in white clothing, you would be cooler in summer when the sun shine more and warmer at night and in winter.

I take it you are also aware that Antarctica has the most amount of snow ever recorded? Not aware of that but anyway what about the Arctic?
...explain that please if it is "GLOBAL WARMING" (as a side note, it is estimated that the Antarctic holds 95% of all the worlds ice.)I am led to believe that the ice at one pole is on land and the other isn't.

Then there is the Bullshit! "Global" Sea level rising, yet more lies. Put an ice cube in water and watch it melt and the overall effect is that the level remains the same. However if ice melts off land the sea level does rise.

I had to laugh at the Maldives president giving a cabinet meeting under the water to highlight the dangers of global warming effecting sea levels. When the Maldives has seen a drop in sea levels by some 35 centimetres. Over how many years? A mere ten or eleven perhaps?

Without trying to sound patronizing you fail to see the full picture, the fact you can't see that climate models are now complete debunked due to poor data entry means nothing to you.

I can't for the life of me understand how you can't see this is a scam. Why are these Pseudo-scientist using data that they know is wrong and selective?
There is an expression in IT programming put shit in, get shit out!Shit in, shit out. Yep! So who is telling the shit?

I find it amazing how Cognitive the religion of Global warming is. The environmental movement has been hijacked. ... Big business must be laughing their asses off at how stupid "average Joe" is. No, then tell me, how do big businesses such as car manufactures and greedy oil companies, make much profit from the idea of Global Warming?

andyh

15-11-2009, 03:50 PM

No, then tell me, how do big businesses such as car manufactures and greedy oil companies, make much profit from the idea of Global Warming?

You're about to find out lol.

Btw, here's a graph showing info we have logged for a much longer time period.
You'll notice huge variation-
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

What we're undergoing at the moment is nothing spectacular as far as the planet is concerned.
It's a given that pollution is a problem, but CO2 is a small part of it as far as both myself and 30,000 scientists are concerned.
The issue has become politicised, politicians no longer pay any attention to scientists whatsoever unless what they peddle feeds their agenda.
The IPCC stands for International Political Climate Crap
:)

jiffy

15-11-2009, 05:39 PM

If I had a penny for every time I heard that one. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: So where did you cherry pick that information from? How many tones of trees are there on the earth and how do they grow?

Look up photosynthesis it's elementary school knowledge and a scientific fact and photosynthesis uses CO2 from the atmosphere.

Then what becomes of a tree when it is burnt? CO2 and when there's not enough oxygen for the fire CO (carbon monoxide) as well and guess what? We also get charcoal = (mainly) carbon.

And guess what, trees and other vegetation after being buried for thousands of years under pressure, turn into coal which contains carbon (that's why coal is black!) as well as hydrocarbons (oils and so on) instead of the carbohydrates which was the case with the live plant.

Yet you say that trees are more or less carbon neutral. :rolleyes: :p and I say you cherry pick your knowledge because you do not know the very basics of science.

So in 1872 was an ice age more than the span of 10,000 years ago? Who are you trying to kid?

So now we have a thousand year cycle - first I heard of it.

Why indeed cook the figures?

Sorry but I have not heard of "Manns Hockey stick".

You tell me! Good question. Yet, so what?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html
It is. It changes every year, sometimes it goes up and sometimes it goes down but what is the over all average?
It does both. Suppose you were covered in white clothing, you would be cooler in summer when the sun shine more and warmer at night and in winter.

Not aware of that but anyway what about the Arctic?
I am led to believe that the ice at one pole is on land and the other isn't.

Put an ice cube in water and watch it melt and the overall effect is that the level remains the same. However if ice melts off land the sea level does rise.

Over how many years? A mere ten or eleven perhaps?

Shit in, shit out. Yep! So who is telling the shit?

No, then tell me, how do big businesses such as car manufactures and greedy oil companies, make much profit from the idea of Global Warming?

You have no need to patronize me with remedial science, doesn't give your opinions any more credibility:rolleyes:

Shame you have not researched the Carbon cycle of tree's.

Yes I could find you a million links to the wonders of planting trees, but alas I read scientific papers NOT propaganda.

There have been many studies questioning the amount of Co2 rain forest release back into the atmosphere. Funny enough they release more the warmer the climate, thus off setting any benefit of capture.

Also missed the part when a tree dies, which then releases Co2 via bacteria and other organisms.

Clearly the argument is lost, I use scientific papers you use Wiki. When you can answer the two main question with a cohesive reply I will listen.

The atmosphere has seen any notable change in temperature FACT

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.”
- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

The analogy of white clothing is a classic, you couldn't of made a better case for my argument if you tried.:rolleyes:

White clothing repeals the heat from the source..ie the Sun......thus making you cooler...yes?

So using YOUR analogy green house gases will repeal heat from the source...ie the sun......thus making you (the earth) cooler.

I rest my case

jiffy

15-11-2009, 05:54 PM

Tjohn if you are serious about finding the truth for your self

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhatch.senate.gov%2Fpublic%2F_file s%2FUSSenateEPWMinorityReport.pdf&rct=j&q=us+minority+report+on+glabal+warming&ei=aT4AS52VFdD94Aba8YzuCw&usg=AFQjCNFQi1LItjmzn4j5jMn6yaz8nXLhgg

This link is to a US Minority Report on Global climate change, from this report you will be able to access scientist peer reviewed papers that may help you on your way to being a skeptic.

kind regards on your journey:D

tjohn

16-11-2009, 05:09 PM

You're about to find out lol.

Btw, here's a graph showing info we have logged for a much longer time period.
You'll notice huge variation-
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.pngWhat we're undergoing at the moment is nothing spectacular as far as the planet is concerned.
It's a given that pollution is a problem, but CO2 is a small part of it as far as both myself and 30,000 scientists are concerned.A small part is still a part. Then it is not 30,000 'scientists' with a PHD but something in the order of 9,000 and I never heard of a scientist (in the accepted sense of that word) without at least a PHD. However, 9,000 is an impressive number and I am looking at this issue again.

The issue has become politicised, politicians no longer pay any attention to scientists whatsoever unless what they peddle feeds their agenda.
The IPCC stands for International Political Climate Crap
:)The issue has become 'politicised' on both sides but without such an agenda I conclude that:

If we are to believe the charts, when looking at the picture over several thousands of years, the average trend is that of global cooling. However since the industrial revolution there is global warming, as is clearly seen from the charts.

Because of human activity, technically global warming exists in our present era and the question is do we want this, seeing as it upsets the present natural balance - the exact value of which we do not know.

Put an ice cube in a glass of water and contrary to many expectations when the ice has melted the water level does not go up. This is because ice displaces the water and ice has air absorbed in it, so when it melts the water level does not noticeably increase. So ice melting at the North pole which does not have land underneath, has little difference to sea level but at the same time it does effect warm sea currents as fresh water mixes with salty water. For example, the UK would become colder once the threshold of diluting salt water has been reached to a point where it would stop the warm salty sea current called the Gulf Stream.

On the other hand, because the ice at the South pole is on land, ice melting at the South pole adds to sea levels and if nothing is done, it would flood parts of the world such as parts of Pakistan and other sea level (or lower) lands.

Since the industrial age, CO2, Methane and other 'greenhouse' gasses are accelerating the present upward climb, whereas over several thousand years (at least according to some data), the average has been going down. Exactly how much we in the present age, are contributing to global (present day average) warming I don't know and nor does anyone else but the point is that we are living in the present age, where people are living in places that are likely to flood if we simply carry on as we are doing. What's more, even though the average world-wide temperature would be such and such, once a threshold has been reached places like the UK would actually become colder, through the mixing of fresh water with salt water, by diluting the warm salty water conveyor belt and thus making it stop.
http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/545.html

Regardless of the data that go back seven or eight thousand years, we live in the present age, so because of humanity's contribution (which is an unknown value) do we want our present climate to change? We live in the present age, so do we want to see land flooded and millions of people made homeless? Also, do we want the gulf stream to fail, which would cause problems for the UK and Europe?

Note that an 'unknown value' is not the same as nothing, so do we want to risk affecting future people because of any 'political' agenda? I say that we should do the least we can to effect the climate.

John

jiffy

16-11-2009, 08:39 PM

Yet more dodgy figures, makes me laugh that climate models are based on this nonsense

As some of our readers have already noticed, there was a significant problem with the daily sea ice data images on February 16. The problem arose from a malfunction of the satellite sensor we use for our daily sea ice products. Upon further investigation, we discovered that starting around early January, an error known as sensor drift caused a slowly growing underestimation of Arctic sea ice extent. The underestimation reached approximately 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles) by mid-February

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/021809.html

measuring the ice with an old tape measure and assuring Prince Charles by satellite telephone that it is "thinner than expected".
When the trio heard a passing aircraft, which they hoped was bringing much-needed supplies, they little realised it was a DC-3 carrying an international team of scientists, using the latest electro-magnetic induction equipment to discover rather more efficiently that the ice was in fact "twice as thick" as they had expected.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5301082/Climate-change-The-elements-conspire-against-the-warmists.html

Antarctic Sea Ice for March

Extent Concentration
2009 5.0 million sq km 2.9 million sq km
1997 3.8 million sq km 2.2 million sq km
1980 3.5 million sq km 2.0 million sq km

This is an increase of 45% for ice concentration since 1980. This continues a long trend that has been noted here for several months..

Interior ice is also increasing but not due to warming as the models have predicted. According to NOAA GISS data winter temperatures in the antarctic have actually fallen by 1°F since 1957, with the coldest year being 2004. All the while global CO2 levels have gone up and the main stream media has been reporting near catastrophic warming conditions. They regularly show Antarctic sea ice shelves breaking apart, which is an entirely normal process (though they never tell you that part). The main stream media and certain segments of the scientific community truly must have no shame.

If you have doubts about the increase in ice you can run the numbers yourself at the National Snow and Ice Data Center's website (part of the University of Colorado and funded by the National Science Foundation).

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/comment.php?comment.news.109.3

jiffy

16-11-2009, 08:48 PM

andyh

16-11-2009, 09:01 PM

A small part is still a part. Then it is not 30,000 'scientists' with a PHD but something in the order of 9,000 and I never heard of a scientist (in the accepted sense of that word) without at least a PHD. However, 9,000 is an impressive number and I am looking at this issue again.

The issue has become 'politicised' on both sides but without such an agenda I conclude that:

If we are to believe the charts, when looking at the picture over several thousands of years, the average trend is that of global cooling. However since the industrial revolution there is global warming, as is clearly seen from the charts.

Because of human activity, technically global warming exists in our present era and the question is do we want this, seeing as it upsets the present natural balance - the exact value of which we do not know.

Put an ice cube in a glass of water and contrary to many expectations when the ice has melted the water level does not go up. This is because ice displaces the water and ice has air absorbed in it, so when it melts the water level does not noticeably increase. So ice melting at the North pole which does not have land underneath, has little difference to sea level but at the same time it does effect warm sea currents as fresh water mixes with salty water. For example, the UK would become colder once the threshold of diluting salt water has been reached to a point where it would stop the warm salty sea current called the Gulf Stream.

On the other hand, because the ice at the South pole is on land, ice melting at the South pole adds to sea levels and if nothing is done, it would flood parts of the world such as parts of Pakistan and other sea level (or lower) lands.

Since the industrial age, CO2, Methane and other 'greenhouse' gasses are accelerating the present upward climb, whereas over several thousand years (at least according to some data), the average has been going down. Exactly how much we in the present age, are contributing to global (present day average) warming I don't know and nor does anyone else but the point is that we are living in the present age, where people are living in places that are likely to flood if we simply carry on as we are doing. What's more, even though the average world-wide temperature would be such and such, once a threshold has been reached places like the UK would actually become colder, through the mixing of fresh water with salt water, by diluting the warm salty water conveyor belt and thus making it stop.
http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/545.html

Regardless of the data that go back seven or eight thousand years, we live in the present age, so because of humanity's contribution (which is an unknown value) do we want our present climate to change? We live in the present age, so do we want to see land flooded and millions of people made homeless? Also, do we want the gulf stream to fail, which would cause problems for the UK and Europe?

Note that an 'unknown value' is not the same as nothing, so do we want to risk affecting future people because of any 'political' agenda? I say that we should do the least we can to effect the climate.

John

I've heard about the possible reduction of salinity causing the gulfstream to fail, certainly there has been some considerable melt in Greenland which is land ice.

I would agree with that post pretty much 100% except for the "least we can to affect the climate" part.
I'm almost convinced that we will have an effect of some sort regardless of what we do currently and we seem to have such limited knowledge which is hampered further by politicians who seem to back the most outlandish ideas eg ethanol/hydrogen.

There's already been some examples of weather modifcation going on (granted locally limited) with cloud seeding. I find it rather reckless (polluting) and the results are often not quite what they expected.

I would love to see a reduction in oil usage, there are obviously many alternate technologies available to use now, but green incentives and taxation are not a good idea imo.
I'd rather see people do it of their own free will because it makes sense to do so and can be profitable if govt allowed the right circumstances to come about through non intervention.

rodin

16-11-2009, 09:45 PM

* In the mid 1960s, ITT built a power transmission line in Antarctica. The transmission towers stood 115 feet tall.

Photo, taken in the late 1980s, show that the Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing thicker.
We agree on this @ least

What a crock climate change is. The real danger is FOOD change being enforced. That and Codex Alimentarus

tjohn

16-11-2009, 10:25 PM

* In the mid 1960s, ITT built a power transmission line in Antarctica. The transmission towers stood 115 feet tall.

* As you can see in these photos, all but the top 30 feet of the towers are now buried in ice

http://www.iceagenow.com/Power_Transmission_Towers-1.jpg

http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet-1.jpg

Photo, taken in the late 1980s, show that the Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing thicker.Psst... a little confusing with the second photo (I cannot help but notice that the tower in the second photo is not of the same sort as the towers in the first).

Taking a look at the first photo and taking that there is now less of the towers showing than when they were built (they look more than 30 feet tall unless they are unusually thick towers), one of two things could have happened:
1) There has been much more snow/ice deposited since they were originally built or, 2) they have simply sunk down into the ice.

When an iceberg comes floating in the nearest sea to where you live, let us know which you think it is. :D

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058408180&postcount=2 < your post.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/12/article-1227228-072FA990000005DC-63_964x353_popup.jpg

(http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058408180&postcount=2)

tjohn

16-11-2009, 11:24 PM

I've heard about the possible reduction of salinity causing the gulfstream to fail, certainly there has been some considerable melt in Greenland which is land ice.

I would agree with that post pretty much 100% except for the "least we can to affect the climate" part.
I'm almost convinced that we will have an effect of some sort regardless of what we do currently and we seem to have such limited knowledge which is hampered further by politicians who seem to back the most outlandish ideas eg ethanol/hydrogen.

There's already been some examples of weather modifcation going on (granted locally limited) with cloud seeding. I find it rather reckless (polluting) and the results are often not quite what they expected.

I would love to see a reduction in oil usage, there are obviously many alternate technologies available to use now, but green incentives and taxation are not a good idea imo. Why in your opinion are more Green alternatives to using oil so outlandish? Do we need to use as much fossil fuel(s) as we do at present? Or is the real issue about being taxed? If you can install solar panels and/or wind turbines (or perhaps other sources of energy) then rather than being taxed, your bill for the initial outlay would likely be subsidised after which you get some energy for practically nothing. :)

I'd rather see people do it of their own free will because it makes sense to do so and can be profitable if govt allowed the right circumstances to come about through non intervention.Same here!

tjohn

17-11-2009, 12:06 AM

Do we, should we, support the oil companies?

smoke n mirrors

17-11-2009, 12:34 AM

Why in your opinion are more Green alternatives to using oil so outlandish? Do we need to use as much fossil fuel(s) as we do at present? Or is the real issue about being taxed? If you can install solar panels and/or wind turbines (or perhaps other sources of energy) then rather than being taxed, your bill for the initial outlay would likely be subsidised after which you get energy for practically nothing. :)

Same here!

The vast majority of people, who understand that the whole business of humans being the driving force, behind global warming is a sham - based on biased and corrupted science, serving an entirely different agenda. They also understand the meaning of conserving and preserving resources. These things are two entirely different debates.

Subsidised by who? If we receive a subsidy from the government that means we are taking back our own money, less the expenses of the various administrative systems.

Wouldn't it be better to reign in the governments, end their corruption and pandering to corporate entities? If taxes were realistic and people had enough spare cash, to maintain a healthier more sustainable life style, maybe things would be different. The fact of the matter is that, most people can't make the choices they would like to make, because they don't have the means. Most issues of poverty are born out of poor government and corporate polices. Did factory works volunteer to lose their jobs to overseas companies? Who instigated the policies of out sourcing call center workers etc. - the people who would be left unemployed or greedy bankers, utility companies and other corporations? The legacy of these policies is only just beginning to unfold. How is an increased system of taxation going to encourage people to be green? It will only serve to increase the divide and shift the balance of wealth further in favor of the rich. Rich people can afford new greener cars and alternative sources of energy...while sneering at people less fortunate.

Even though the flawed science you continue to cling to is falling apart, and physical evidence to the contrary mounts, you maintain your blinkered views. Thank goodness, people that used to share your mindset are beginning to reject the BS, spouted by government funded scientific prostitutes.

.

andyh

17-11-2009, 12:45 AM

Why in your opinion are more Green alternatives to using oil so outlandish? Do we need to use as much fossil fuel(s) as we do at present? Or is the real issue about being taxed? If you can install solar panels and/or wind turbines (or perhaps other sources of energy) then rather than being taxed, your bill for the initial outlay would likely be subsidised after which you get some energy for practically nothing. :)

Same here!

It's about govt sticking their noses into everything, false money (fractional reserve system) and lobbyists (you can stick oil companies in here along with God only knows what else in the way of big money).
If we had a true free market and sound money then none of this would ever have happened as it's impossible under such a system to have monopolies/cartels and new upcoming tech would be implemented far faster as there would be open competition and research and invention would be given free reign. (I'm a hardcore libertarian heh)

The human race has never been given a chance from the get go, things have always been controlled in so many ways.

IMO the best energy solution I have seen so far is geothermal Geothermal energy, energy of the future? - YouTube
and there's a real lack of decent research in the field of mycology. This is well worth watching by everyone btw...
http://blog.ted.com/2008/05/paul_stamets.php

I'm also fascinated with hemp!
Not for smoking it, although that's perhaps not a bad idea with how stressful times are getting :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjhT9282-Tw

Again govt regulations prevent any decent study here.

I never said green alternatives were outlandish by the way, just some of the ones offered are laughable.
Iceland for example stands to reap the whirlwind shortly running datacentres using geothermal power and natural cooling.

andyh

17-11-2009, 01:17 AM

Note by the way how those shrooms have an incredible effect on flu virii....
Is this what the elite are using to protect themselves?
The vid was feb 2008 and he mentioned working with US DOD "Bioshield programme" USAMRIID.

amaralsright

17-11-2009, 11:04 AM

China and US 'to work together'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8363643.stm

On climate change, Barack Obama said both sides agreed on the need for a comprehensive global deal in Copenhagen next month, not a political statement.

Fuck human rights issues then.

Copenhagen is going to be very interesting, US and China have agreed to global legislation.

Global legislation needs administering and policing.

You're watching world government appearing before your very eyes.

primordialman

17-11-2009, 11:52 AM

3 - Climate Change -- Anatomy of a myth - YouTube

4 - Climate Change -- Gore vs. Durkin - YouTube

amaralsright

17-11-2009, 12:41 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms

This one appeals to a 1970's paper by Wallace Broecker (who warned of Global Warming) - the same man who thinks Al Gore's hockey stick is bollocks.

You can't have it all ways.

Broecker has recently been warning that Global Warming could lead to cooling in the northern hemisphere.

http://www.strom.clemson.edu/becker/prtm320/commons/broecker.html

Man-made carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) could upset the thermohaline circulation in the oceans. The result would be a substantial cooling component in northern hemisphere climate. Heat from the tropics would no longer be transported to the north which would produce a huge shift in climate in less than a decade. However, whether climate substantially warms over the next few decades or suddenly cools considerably, either would be catastrophic, particularly for agriculture.

If it gets hotter or cooler it's all catashropic.

All bases nicely covered.

amaralsright

17-11-2009, 12:47 PM

Broecker 1997

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/climate/stories/sci120197.htm

Yet paradoxically, one of the most horrendous potential consequences of global warming is catastrophic local cooling, specifically across Europe.

If you think it's getting hotter - it's mans fault.
If you think it's gets cooler - it's man fault.

Whatever happens - it's man's fault.

It's not "global warming" anymore ("global warming" didn't work).. it's "climate change" now - the PR got smarter.

amaralsright

17-11-2009, 12:52 PM

Broecker warns of new ice age.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-6215964.html

If the current is "turned off," even a new ice age could begin, Broecker said

I thought - according to the above video - that warning of ice ages from the 1970's were bullshit by climate change deniers.. yet here we have the man they use as evidence of 1970's scientists warning of global warning instead predicting a new ice age.

!!!??????!!!!

Complicated isn't it.

smoke n mirrors

17-11-2009, 01:47 PM

!!!??????!!!!

Complicated isn't it.

It's not complicated it's just a load of BS. When the human race can trump the energy received from one days exposure to the Sun - we may have reason to panic.

.

amaralsright

17-11-2009, 02:03 PM

It's not complicated it's just a load of BS. When the human race can trump the energy received from one days exposure to the Sun - we may have reason to panic.
.

I agree, the BS is flying everywhere.

TPTB are totally ignoring all counter arguments and GW is taken as fact and will be discussed (yeah right) as fact in Cophenhagen.

jiffy

17-11-2009, 03:56 PM

Psst... a little confusing with the second photo (I cannot help but notice that the tower in the second photo is not of the same sort as the towers in the first).

Taking a look at the first photo and taking that there is now less of the towers showing than when they were built (they look more than 30 feet tall unless they are unusually thick towers), one of two things could have happened:
1) There has been much more snow/ice deposited since they were originally built or, 2) they have simply sunk down into the ice.

When an iceberg comes floating in the nearest sea to where you live, let us know which you think it is. :D

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058408180&postcount=2 < your post.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/12/article-1227228-072FA990000005DC-63_964x353_popup.jpg

(http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058408180&postcount=2)

Sorry if they were a little confusing. They are different, the first photo is a crane that is now under snow.

The 2 towers and crane where part of a base that hasn't sunk it has been completely covered in snow.

As for the Iceberg, this was to point out how unusual it is to have an iceberg so far north (without melting)ie the sea is cooler:eek:

The largest iceberg that has ever broken off was in the 50s it was something like 200odd miles by 60odd miles. ;)

jiffy

17-11-2009, 04:37 PM

Do we, should we, support the oil companies?

Hey we all agree (I Think) that our environment is in a bad way. I also agree that oil companies are the single worst offenders.

My issue isn't we need to use less Oil, drive less, live a more sustainable life, consume less, have social co-operatives and more.

I see this political led farce as a cover for large corporations to continue to pollute all be it by other means.
Trust me wallstreet can not wait to get it's hands on a world full of carbon trades. Mark my words Carbon trades will go the same way derivatives has.
Economically you can not put a price and trade something (and last) that has no intrinsic value, as per derivatives.

Two examples (I have many)of how the Carbon Con is costing the environment:mad:

UK rivers are some of the worst polluted water way in the western world.

Estrogen is in such high levels in our water ways that fish are changing sex and being born hermaphrodite. This is leading to Fertility problem and reducing numbers alarmingly.
They have now discovered another chemical (who name alludes me) they think is a driver for the Estrogen, thus exacerbating it's effects:eek:

Here is the stinker....They have made a machine that is capable of filtering 99.9% of the water............but it's carbon foot print is to high:rolleyes:

Remember this is entering our drinking water supply, no wonder the young males of today I call spice boy's:eek:

Number two

The drive (pun) to encourage people to buy diesel vehicles, because they produce less C02...sounds good until you realise that a diesel is 3000 times dirtier than a petrol. Not only that but the soot they kick out is carcinogenic.

When California used to have a permanent smog the single largest effect on there air quality were diesel vehicles, which is why they limited them...

jiffy

17-11-2009, 04:41 PM

Fuck human rights issues then.

Not sure any leader of the US is in a position to preach, do you:confused:

amaralsright

17-11-2009, 05:00 PM

Not sure any leader of the US is in a position to preach, do you:confused:

At least the west used to pretend they were once concerned about human rights issues in China.

Now they are afraid it will affect business.

The world stinks.

amaralsright

17-11-2009, 05:12 PM

When did China move beyond this?

http://ramblingsofpassion.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/051201_tiananmen-square_ex.jpg

Because I must have missed it.

Remember when the world thought China was really bad, did I dream it?

We mustn't upset the new world economic power though.. oh no.

jiffy

17-11-2009, 07:18 PM

Never said China were angels, has nothing to do with NWO u just seem to see things with "western" eye's.
Trust me there are far more people hate (I mean hate) the USA than they do China.
If you want to trade pictures

http://people.moreheadstate.edu/students/alsimp01/images/hiroshima1.gif

The USA has committed more human right violation than any other country.

As Britons greatest play right Harold Pinter said

"Everyone knows what happened in the Soviet Union and throughout Eastern Europe during the post-war period: the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent thought. All this has been fully documented and verified.

But my contention here is that the US crimes in the same period have only been superficially recorded, let alone documented, let alone acknowledged, let alone recognised as crimes at all. I believe this must be addressed and that the truth has considerable bearing on where the world stands now. Although constrained, to a certain extent, by the existence of the Soviet Union, the United States' actions throughout the world made it clear that it had concluded it had carte blanche to do what it liked."

amaralsright

17-11-2009, 07:58 PM

Never said China were angels, has nothing to do with NWO u just seem to see things with "western" eye's.

I see an evil regime that sucks the soul out of human beings. The Chinese system is evil but I think some people in the west see it as a model for humanity.

You think I like captialism more?

Think again.

But at least in the west I can post on forums like this (for now).

The world is moving towards totalitarianism - they already got it in China.

jiffy

17-11-2009, 08:14 PM

But at least in the west I can post on forums like this (for now).

The world is moving towards totalitarianism - they already got it in China.

Totalitarian dictatorships have a finite life span, the people's can see the dictator.

On the other hand Capitalist dictatorships can last a lot longer, there populous think there free because they can post on the web:D and vote there dictator out;)

amaralsright

17-11-2009, 08:18 PM

Are you arguing for the Chinese way?

jiffy

17-11-2009, 08:27 PM

Are you arguing for the Chinese way?

Not at all, I just see things as they are, not as the "West" wants me programmed to see.

I'm also not a "conspiracy theorist" I only use fact's, fact's that can be substantiated and don't make 2 + 2 =5 (not saying you do;))

primordialman

18-11-2009, 12:38 AM

If you think it's getting hotter - it's mans fault.
If you think it's gets cooler - it's man fault.

Whatever happens - it's man's fault.

Why does humanity deserve to survive why does material progress deserve to be sustained?
Most views of materialists can be traced back to ancient perverted Platonic/Gnostic sources made practical ideology.
As for myself i follower of Christ, Apocalyspe will come Humanity will get its just deserts!.

smoke n mirrors

18-11-2009, 12:43 AM

Why does humanity deserve to survive why does material progress deserve to be sustained?
Most views of materialists can be traced back to ancient perverted Platonic/Gnostic sources made practical ideology.
As for myself i follower of Christ, Apocalyspe will come Humanity will get its just deserts!.

Blind faith...how can anyone argue against such impeccable logic? :rolleyes:

amaralsright

18-11-2009, 08:49 AM

As for myself i follower of Christ, Apocalyspe will come Humanity will get its just deserts!.

Except for you and people like you of course.

tjohn

18-11-2009, 10:09 AM

Sorry if they were a little confusing. They are different, the first photo is a crane that is now under snow.

The 2 towers and crane where part of a base that hasn't sunk it has been completely covered in snow.

As for the Iceberg, this was to point out how unusual it is to have an iceberg so far north (without melting)ie the sea is cooler:eek:

The largest iceberg that has ever broken off was in the 50s it was something like 200odd miles by 60odd miles. ;)So are you saying that the sea is colder than usual and this is why ice is breaking off?

Lets look at this chart again. Over around 8,000 years the average is toward colder but it starts to go up again with the start of the industrial age.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

That chart only starts at 2004 (the right hand side is the past).

Here's another chart focusing on the present era.

http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/nasa-2007.jpg

Are we adding to global warming? Or put another way, offsetting the downward trend? Or is this simply showing natural variations?

The issue has become politicised I admit but it seems reasonable to me to say that human activity is having some effect on the climate.

amaralsright

18-11-2009, 10:39 AM

Here's another chart focusing on the present era.

http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/nasa-2007.jpg

How was that chart arrived at?

I was following another debate about a similar chart involving the infamous Al Gore "hockey stick".

It turns out the "hockey stick" is bollocks and based on cherry picked data.

You're right, this is politicised, you have to watch out for the sleight of hand, even from scientists.

tjohn

18-11-2009, 10:49 AM

Why does humanity deserve to survive why does material progress deserve to be sustained?
Most views of materialists can be traced back to ancient perverted Platonic/Gnostic sources made practical ideology.
As for myself i [a] follower of Christ, Apocalypse will come Humanity will get its just deserts!But he loves you! :rolleyes:
George Carlin - Religion is bullshit. - YouTube
So you are saved through believing a myth and we the rest of humanity are doomed, is that right? God (excuse that Word), such arrogance!

tjohn

18-11-2009, 10:59 AM

How was that chart arrived at?

I was following another debate about a similar chart involving the infamous Al Gore "hockey stick".

It turns out the "hockey stick" is bollocks and based on cherry picked data.

You're right, this is politicised, you have to watch out for the sleight of hand, even from scientists.Well I know that the climate has on average got noticeably warmer even during my life which began in 1947. How old are you?

amaralsright

18-11-2009, 11:06 AM

Well I know that the climate has on average got noticeably warmer even during my life which began in 1947. How old are you?

1958.

That didn't answer my question though.

tjohn

18-11-2009, 11:26 AM

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sea+level+rise

tjohn

18-11-2009, 11:29 AM

1958.

That didn't answer my question though.Don't know but I take it as it is, which coincides with other charts.

amaralsright

18-11-2009, 11:41 AM

Don't know but I take it as it is, which coincides with other charts.

It coincides with the hockey stick chart. That is a proven fraud.

Never take things "for what that appear to be".

It's a chart that has NASA in it's file name, that would be a start.

primordialman

18-11-2009, 11:44 AM

Except for you and people like you of course.
Some people just cant get to grips with the idea the world will probly end very soon!
Most atheists seem to fear it more than people of religious faith because they only have this life to live, then its all over ad infinitum.

Anyway back to the topic, in terms of climate change i thought it would be all the more reason why one would want to look after the planet not rubbish its unnatural demise clearly i am mistaken!.:confused:

tjohn:
Wow you seem popular here dont you mate, seems you like making enemies. Why not keep to the topic at hand.
I dont attack you personal beliefs so dont attack mine.
Seems you like wasting time in this section arguing with thoose whom will never agree with you, ill leave you too it, theres better threads to spend time on! ENJOY!!:mad:

tjohn

18-11-2009, 11:49 AM

It coincides with the hockey stick chart. That is a proven fraud.

Never take things "for what that appear to be".

It's a chart that has NASA in it's file name, that would be a start.I know but I take it as it is, which coincides with other charts. :D

tjohn

18-11-2009, 12:10 PM

tjohn:
Wow you seem popular here dont you mate, seems you like making enemies. Actually, I have more friends on here than you do.
Yours: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/member.php?u=15018
Mine: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/member.php?u=20499

Why not keep to the topic at hand.Indeed! So why do you preach religion on here which is off topic??

I dont attack you personal beliefs so dont attack mine. As a truth seeker, I am likely to challenge your faith (faith means trust) because in my opinion it is blind faith.

Seems you like wasting time in this section arguing with thoose whom will never agree with you, ill leave you too it, theres better threads to spend time on! ENJOY!!:mad:OK then, you go to the religious threads and preach your blind nonsense, then we will both be more happy. :rolleyes:

amaralsright

18-11-2009, 12:24 PM

Some people just cant get to grips with the idea the world will probly end very soon!

Probably?

Really?

Based on what evidence?

The Bible?

It doesn't matter because "man will get his just deserts" except for the fundies who will be taken up to get their just reward in heaven.

You people are frightening. You're wishing for catastrophy, perhaps facilitating it even.

smoke n mirrors

18-11-2009, 01:17 PM

Most atheists seem to fear it more than people of religious faith because they only have this life to live, then its all over ad infinitum.

Really? And what foundation is this little nugget of BS based on? :confused:

There are lots of threads on here that will demonstrate quite the opposite, of such a narrow minded statement.

Perhaps you should spend some time looking into some of the alternative spiritual genres, before generalising in such a gaudy fashion.

.

primordialman

18-11-2009, 01:47 PM

Actually, I have more friends on here than you do.
Yours: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/member.php?u=15018 (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/member.php?u=15018)
Mine: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/member.php?u=20499 (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/member.php?u=20499)

Lets see a a fora full of climate change denyers then we have you sitting here making casual objections.
Your controlled opposition its, clear, why not just join the denyers with the rest of the sheeple!.

As for the the cyber aqaintences Fuck them i knew from day i signed on here i wouldnt make any, the Icke forum = Fascist Pagans two things i dislike i post here because sophistry against sheeple is an interesting sport!.

smoke n mirrors

18-11-2009, 01:59 PM

Lets see a a fora full of climate change denyers then we have you sitting here making casual objections.
Your controlled opposition its, clear, why not just join the denyers with the rest of the sheeple!.

As for the the cyber aqaintences Fuck them i knew from day i signed on here i wouldnt make any, the Icke forum = Fascist Pagans two things i dislike i post here because sophistry against sheeple is an interesting sport!.

sophistry: isn't that a posh way of saying you're full of s**t?

.

jiffy

18-11-2009, 04:05 PM

Not getting into a Theological debate, but lets just say the word bible=Plagiarism :rolleyes:

TJohn funny you quote the Chart that I already mentions earlier "Manns hockey stick" Except you said you never heard of it:p

"amaralsright" is correct this has been proven to be absolute nonsense, but Gore will continue to peddle it on his "crusade"

I take it you are also aware at what happened when Al Gore "Convenient truth" went through the high court? google if you don't.

I have re-read some of the Ice core scientific papers I have.

here is what they say
Jorgen Pedar Steffensen
Niels Bohr Institute, Department of Geophysics

4000 thousand years ago to about 2000 years (Roman age)The temperature in Greenland decrease by 2.5 degrees.
Then the Temperature increased gradually to there maximum about 1000 years ago ( Medieval warming period)
The Temperatures declined to a minimum about 1658AD.
Then they rose a little in the early part of the 18 century.
Finally they fell to there lowest point for 8000 thousand years at Around 1875, which is the same time as records began.
So the temperatures that we see today are being compared to the lowest in 8000 years.

This is why the "Hockey stick" is a pack of lies, none of this data which has been corroborated with other ice cores and soil cores from around the world, fits into Manns lies!!

tjohn

18-11-2009, 04:09 PM

sophistry: isn't that a posh way of saying you're full of s**t?
Very likely IMO... perhaps an understatement. :D

Now what was the topic? As I remember it was about climate change or something...

tjohn

18-11-2009, 05:33 PM

Not getting into a Theological debate, but lets just say the word bible=Plagiarism :rolleyes:

TJohn funny you quote the Chart that I already mentions earlier "Manns hockey stick" Except you said you never heard of it:p

"amaralsright" is correct this has been proven to be absolute nonsense, but Gore will continue to peddle it on his "crusade"

I take it you are also aware at what happened when Al Gore "Convenient truth" went through the high court? google if you don't.

I have re-read some of the Ice core scientific papers I have.

here is what they say
Jorgen Pedar Steffensen
Niels Bohr Institute, Department of Geophysics

4000 thousand years ago to about 2000 years (Roman age)The temperature in Greenland decrease by 2.5 degrees.
Then the Temperature increased gradually to there maximum about 1000 years ago ( Medieval warming period)
The Temperatures declined to a minimum about 1658AD.
Then they rose a little in the early part of the 18 century.
Finally they fell to there lowest point for 8000 thousand years at Around 1875, which is the same time as records began.Which coincidentally was the start of the industrial revolution. So the temperatures that we see today are being compared to the lowest in 8000 years. The point is that we are not living 8,000 years ago. The point is that humans (and animals) have multiplied and many millions of people are now living on low land, which will become flooded if the rise above the natural declining temperature part of the natural and larger cycle, is being offset because of human activity.

Millions of people are now living on low land, so the question is do we want to contribute in any way whatsoever to global warming, or even offset the cooling which apparently started with the industrial revolution, making (average) temperatures rise again?

jiffy

18-11-2009, 06:47 PM

Which coincidentally was the start of the industrial revolution. The point is that we are not living 8,000 years ago. The point is that humans (and animals) have multiplied and many millions of people are now living on low land, which will become flooded if the rise above the natural declining temperature part of the natural and larger cycle, is being offset because of human activity.

Millions of people are now living on low land, so the question is do we want to contribute in any way whatsoever to global warming, or even offset the cooling which apparently started with the industrial revolution, making (average) temperatures rise again?

Clearly we aren't going to agree with mans impact on the climate.
Even though I have provided you enough evidence to sink a battleship and you provide me with a debunked "Hockey stick"

However I do agree regarding peoples on low lying areas, but sadly there isn't the resources or the profit in helping them. This manly down to over population NOT rising sea levels due to any ice melt!!FACT

If you don't believe me on that, then research Oceanography institutes.

Part of the reason for not being able to assist these peoples is the misappropriation of funds. Fighting something that doesn't need(or can't be) to be fault.
I am not the only one saying this either, Ban Ki-moon wrote an open letter to the UN stating this very point.