PDA

View Full Version : global warming hoaX, so prove it..



Bill Cosby
01-04-2011, 02:21 AM
I hear this is all just a big joke, nothing to see here.......

Glaciers, it is cold outside blah blah blah.........

http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Complete_Idiots_GlobalWarmi.gif

http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/files/2009/03/polar-bear-mother-cub-707070.jpg

http://www.tradebit.com/usr/ebook-reader/pub/9002/2186978047073858031370Pic.jpg

Pointgold
01-04-2011, 07:55 AM
More botched climate predictions from reputable 'scientists' involved in the never-ending ploy designed to separate you from your money.

This fearmongering has been going on for years.

1. Within a few years "children just aren't going to know what snow is." Snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event." Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.

2. "[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." Michael Oppenheimer, published in "Dead Heat," St. Martin's Press, 1990.

3. "Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000." Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.

4. "Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010." Associated Press, May 15, 1989.

5. "By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." Life magazine, January 1970.

6. "If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Kenneth E.F. Watt, in "Earth Day," 1970.

7. "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.

8. "In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/30/botched-environmental-forecasts/

Keyser Soze
01-04-2011, 12:04 PM
More botched climate predictions from reputable 'scientists' involved in the never-ending ploy designed to separate you from your money.

This fearmongering has been going on for years.

1. Within a few years "children just aren't going to know what snow is." Snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event." Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.

2. "[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." Michael Oppenheimer, published in "Dead Heat," St. Martin's Press, 1990.

3. "Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000." Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.

4. "Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010." Associated Press, May 15, 1989.

5. "By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." Life magazine, January 1970.

6. "If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Kenneth E.F. Watt, in "Earth Day," 1970.

7. "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.

8. "In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/30/botched-environmental-forecasts/

First I'd like to point out that by your own words you don't dispute global warming/climate change....just it's cause.

Second...this Fox list is humorous but says nothing about the science. The science is there, fact....check out what climate scientists say, how they work, and why they know the climate is changing due to human activity.

http://www.realclimate.org/

Bill Cosby
01-04-2011, 12:27 PM
Seems most ppl opposed to global warming are not really interested in facts, eventhough they are always calling for them.........

Since they really have no idea of the science it does not matter much what you tell them..........

"The guy on tv & the radio told me it is all bogus & that is enough for me"

Pointgold
01-04-2011, 12:31 PM
Seems most ppl opposed to global warming are not really interested in facts, eventhough they are always calling for them.........

Since they really have no idea of the science it does not matter much what you tell them..........

"The guy on tv & the radio told me it is all bogus & that is enough for me"No, I'm simply not that gullible. Reverend Gore travels in jets and SUVs and has a home that uses enough energy in a month as some families use in a year. If the sky was really falling there is no way in hell he would be doing that. He's just gotten filthy rich off of fools. Fortunately, I've gained some wisdom over the years and can see the method to the madness.

Keyser Soze
01-04-2011, 12:35 PM
Seems most ppl opposed to global warming are not really interested in facts, eventhough they are always calling for them.........

Since they really have no idea of the science it does not matter much what you tell them..........

"The guy on tv & the radio told me it is all bogus & that is enough for me"

Science be damned, 'common sense' and not being 'gullible' are what counts.

Pointgold
01-04-2011, 12:38 PM
Science be damned, 'common sense' and not being 'gullible' are what counts.Tell you what, you send Reverend Gore a check. Sell your totalitarian fairy tales elsewhere.

You don't believe in God, and behave abhorrently towards anyone who does -- yet you believe in this man-made fairy tale. That's fine, but you can't force anyone else to believe the bullshit so deal with it. :)

Keyser Soze
01-04-2011, 12:46 PM
Tell you what, you send Reverend Gore a check. Sell your totalitarian fairy tales elsewhere.

You don't believe in God, and behave abhorrently towards anyone who does -- yet you believe in this man-made fairy tale. That's fine, but you can't force anyone else to believe the bullshit so deal with it. :)

You make my point and make unfounded accusations of a personal nature as a reply. You have no credibility Mint.

Pointgold
01-04-2011, 12:55 PM
You make my point and make unfounded accusations of a personal nature as a reply. You have no credibility Mint.Unfounded accusations, you are KrazyJane, "KJane", right?

I saw what you did to Cookie and she can corroborate everything I'm saying.

My observation of you has been that you are filled with hate. You always have been, and always will be.

nobull
01-04-2011, 12:55 PM
No, I'm simply not that gullible. Reverend Gore travels in jets and SUVs and has a home that uses enough energy in a month as some families use in a year. If the sky was really falling there is no way in hell he would be doing that. He's just gotten filthy rich off of fools. Fortunately, I've gained some wisdom over the years and can see the method to the madness.

Gore didn't do the science; he simply consolidated into book/film what scientists already know could happen. Why would projects like this one still be ongoing if the potential for devastation wasn't still a very real possibility? Why wouldn't the hoax believers (who have the loudest voices) put projects like this on hold? Andrill is a project that is drilling far beneath the surface of Antartica to discover the history of ice melts in order to better gauge what may happen similarly in the future.

http://andrill.org/iceberg/andrill/index.html

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

According to geologist David Harwood of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, understanding what happened in the warm period is especially important as Earth's climate continues to warm. In the past, scientists working in different parts of the world noted changes in their data, they often deduced that these must be due to changes in the ice on Antarctica. with this seasons drilling scientists will be able to make those connections with more certainty.

"If we can identify time periods in Antarctica when we had minimal ice and minimal ocean freezing, we can then look at that particular interval of time -- and hopefully several examples from those intervals of time — and see how the rest of the world responded. This will provide evidence to confirm or reject a lot of interpretations that have been suggested and linked to Antarctica," he said.

When sea ice forms, it pushes the salt out, creating a mass of cold, salty, dense water that sinks to the bottom of the ocean, creating deep ocean currents that affect ocean circulation and the distribution of heat worldwide.

nobull
01-04-2011, 12:57 PM
Science be damned, 'common sense' and not being 'gullible' are what counts.

A lot of people thought it was impossible to rocket to the moon, too. Are you a scientist or do you just play one on message boards?

Bill Cosby
01-04-2011, 01:04 PM
Tell you what, you send Reverend Gore a check. Sell your totalitarian fairy tales elsewhere.

You don't believe in God, and behave abhorrently towards anyone who does -- yet you believe in this man-made fairy tale. That's fine, but you can't force anyone else to believe the bullshit so deal with it. :)

I did not believe global warming @ first either.............

But the more I found out, the more I believed it is a real possibility.........

A couple points-

One we know for a fact that the planet was warmer in the past. We can easily see what the conditions were @ the time (regardless of why)... If we recreate or help recreate those conditions can we expect a different result???

Two, it is very complicated, sun spots, planet wobbling & cows farting but as any elementary school kid can tell you in science class, if you add X, Y & Z your will get the same result regardless of how often you repeat the exact same process.....

Pointgold
01-04-2011, 01:14 PM
I did not believe global warming @ first either.............

But the more I found out, the more I believed it is a real possibility.........

A couple points-

One we know for a fact that the planet was warmer in the past. We can easily see what the conditions were @ the time (regardless of why)... If we recreate or help recreate those conditions can we expect a different result???

Two, it is very complicated, sun spots, planet wobbling & cows farting but as any elementary school kid can tell you in science class, if you add X, Y & Z your will get the same result regardless of how often you repeat the exact same process.....
The planet has slightly warmed, that isn't in question. The claims it is "man-made" is what I don't buy. We've just had some of the coldest weather ever in Florida the past two years and zero hurricanes. This crap is all cyclical, IMO.

Do you think Rev. Gore would be living large on energy if the sky was really about to fall? No.

Keyser Soze
01-04-2011, 01:15 PM
Unfounded accusations, you are KrazyJane, "KJane", right?

I saw what you did to Cookie and she can corroborate everything I'm saying.

My observation of you has been that you are filled with hate. You always have been, and always will be.

This thread isn't about you or your need to attack others personally in order to hijack the thread turning it into the usual hate fest. You'll do anything rather than talk to the issue at hand and support your point of view with factual information. You are now on ignore because you aren't worth responding to again.

Keyser Soze
01-04-2011, 01:17 PM
A lot of people thought it was impossible to rocket to the moon, too. Are you a scientist or do you just play one on message boards?

Yes. I remember having that very conversation with my fundie father in law, years ago. I ended up telling him his God was too small.

Your point would be what? Did you read and comprehend what I posted?

Pointgold
01-04-2011, 01:20 PM
This thread isn't about you or your need to attack others personally in order to hijack the thread turning it into the usual hate fest. You'll do anything rather than talk to the issue at hand and support your point of view with factual information. You are now on ignore because you aren't worth responding to again.I've attacked no one. You claimed my accusations are unfounded -- which they aren't. And you know it.

Roger from Ohio
01-04-2011, 01:25 PM
The planet has slightly warmed, that isn't in question. The claims it is "man-made" is what I don't buy. We've just had some of the coldest weather ever in Florida the past two years and zero hurricanes. This crap is all cyclical, IMO.

Do you think Rev. Gore would be living large on energy if the sky was really about to fall? No.
There is a huge difference between climate and weather.

Im not sure why you dont believe that man has an impact on the change in the climate..... for well over 100 years we have been puking industrial waste into our eco-system..... that has to have an affect.

Bill Cosby
01-04-2011, 01:26 PM
The planet has slightly warmed, that isn't in question. The claims it is "man-made" is what I don't buy. We've just had some of the coldest weather ever in Florida the past two years and zero hurricanes. This crap is all cyclical, IMO.

Do you think Rev. Gore would be living large on energy if the sky was really about to fall? No.


I don't know how gore lives, nor do I care.........

The weather is cold..............

It is climate, not weather @ issue........

Again, the point is not if we are doing it single handedly but that we are contributing to it.........

I think it naive to believe long term changes do occur & for various reasons but our contributing to those reasons does nothing............ :dunno:

nobull
01-04-2011, 01:34 PM
There is a huge difference between climate and weather.

Im not sure why you dont believe that man has an impact on the change in the climate..... for well over 100 years we have been puking industrial waste into our eco-system..... that has to have an affect.

Not to mention the addition of billions more people since the last warming, all needing their electrified toys, ripping up earth's natural resources and the balance of nature in general just so we can have every manufactured material thing that comes down the pike at our fingertips. Anyone ever hear of the Gia Theory? That the earth itself is a living organism that relies on natural growth in order to survive? It's been stomped on, torn apart, drilled into, clear cut of forestation, you name it. Why wouldn't Mother Earth begin to rebel at some point?

nobull
01-04-2011, 01:36 PM
Yes. I remember having that very conversation with my fundie father in law, years ago. I ended up telling him his God was too small.

Your point would be what? Did you read and comprehend what I posted?

I was responding to your comment "science be damned." Was that satirical and I missed it?

Keyser Soze
01-04-2011, 01:45 PM
I was responding to your comment "science be damned." Was that satirical and I missed it?

Yes it was...I was responding to Mints illogical remarks. I should have written it in green to indicate sarcasm. :thumbsup:

Roger from Ohio
01-04-2011, 01:58 PM
Yes it was...I was responding to Mints illogical remarks. I should have written it in green to indicate sarcasm. :thumbsup:
A theme everyone should adopt :thumbsup:

:hi: :p

Keyser Soze
01-04-2011, 02:03 PM
Cold winter in a world of warming?

Filed under: Arctic and Antarctic Climate Science Climate modelling — rasmus @ 14 December 2010

Last June, during the International Polar Year conference, James Overland suggested that there are more cold and snowy winters to come. He argued that the exceptionally cold snowy 2009-2010 winter in Europe had a connection with the loss of sea-ice in the Arctic. The cold winters were associated with a persistent ‘blocking event’, bringing in cold air over Europe from the north and the east.

Last year’s cold winter over northern Europe was also associated with an extreme situation associated with the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), with the second lowest value for the NAO-index on record (see figure below).
I admit, last winter felt quite cold, but still it wasn’t so cold when put into longer historical perspective. This is because I remember the most recent winters more vividly than those of my childhood – which would be considered to be really frosty by today’s standards. But such recollections can be very subjective, and more objective measurements show that the winters in Europe have in general become warmer in the long run, as explained in the German blog called ‘Wissenlogs’. If there were no trend, then such a low NAO-index as last year’s would normally be associated with even colder conditions over Europe than those observed during the previous winter.

NAO-index for December-March, which the winter 2009-2010 being associated with the second lowest value on record.

In a more recent press-release, Vladimir Petoukhov and Vladimir Semenov, argue that Global Warming could cool down winter temperatures over Europe, and a reduced sea-ice extent could increase the chance of getting cold winters. Also they propose that cold winters are associated with the atmospheric circulation (see schematic below), and their press-release was based on a paper in Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR), which may seem to have a serendipitous timing with the cold spell over Europe during the last weeks. However, the original manuscript was submitted in november 2009 (before the statement made by James Overland) and accepted in May 2010. One could regard the paper more as a ‘prediction’ rather than an ‘explanation’.

(Scematic illustration of proposed effect. Courtesy of PIK.)

Although Petoukhov and Semenov’s findings sound plausible, I don’t think they are as straight-foward as they initially seem in terms of their implications for this winter either. For one thing, it is impossible to prove that one single event is due to a change in the long-term, as we pointed out for the case of hurricanes (The 2010 hurricane season this year, by the way, was quite active).

I think it is important to keep in mind that the Petoukhov and Semenov study is based on a global atmosphere model that simulated a non-linear response to the loss of sea-ice in the Barents-Kara seas: intially warm winters, followed by cold, and then warm winters, as the sea-ice extent is gradually reduced.

(NCEP/NCAR reanalysis: surface temperature anomaly wrt 1961-1990.)

One interesting question is how the Barents-Kara sea-ice affects the winter temperatures over the northern continents. By removing the sea-ice, the atmosphere above feels a stronger heating from the ocean, resulting in anomalous warm conditions over the Barent-Kara seas. The local warming gives rise to altered temperature profiles (temperature gradients) along the vertical and horizontal dimensions.

Changes in the temperature profiles, in turn, affect the circulation, triggering a development of a local blocking structure when the sea-ice extent is reduced from 80% to 40%. But Petoukhov and Semenov also found that it brings a different response when the sea-ice is reduced from 100% to 80% or from 40% to1%, and hence a non-linear response. The most intriguing side to this study was the changing character of the atmospheric response to the sea-ice reduction: from a local cyclonic to anti-cyclonic, and back to cyclonic pattern again. These cyclonic and anti-cyclonic patterns bear some resemblance to the positive and negative NAO phases.

(Sea-ice over Hudson Bay)

They also show a different response in surface air temperature (SAT) during December, January, and February. From their Figure 2, it is not immidiately obvious from that figure that a sea-ice reduction leads to lower SAT during January. This is, however, very much in line with similar analysis that I have carried out with colleagues and struggeled to find a consistent response (albeit we looked at the summer season).

But Petoukhov and Semenov provide theoretical support for their observations, and argue that the non-linear response can be explained in terms of ‘convectional-frictional’ and ‘baro-clinic-frictional’ mechanisms. The former includes warming over the areas where sea-ice disappear, and changes in the vertical temperatur gradients, stability, and hence friction, while the latter involves a change in the surface friction force associated with temperature changes over distances.

I think that the scientific community will need some time to confirm this link, and there are some important caveats: For one thing, the spatial model resolution (the size between the boxes in the grid mesh, through which the models represent the world) has an influence on their ability to represent blocking frequency. Hazeleger et al. Has observed that “… different horizontal resolutions … confirm the resolution-dependence found in NWP [Numerical Weather Prediction]”. The atmospheric model used by Petoukhov and Semenov has a fairly coarse spatial resolution (2.8 degrees x2.8 degrees), and it is legitimate to question whether it can reproduce the
frequencies of blocking events realistically, and whether that has a bearing for the conclusions.

But also the fact that the sea-surface temperatures (SSTs) were fixed in these experiments may affect the conclusions. Balmaseda et al. found that the atmospheric response to changes in sea-ice conditions may depend on the background SSTs, at least for the summer months. They also compared results from a coupled ocean-atmosphere model with the results from an atmosphere model for which the SSTs were given. Their unexpected finding was that the atmospheric response in these two cases were very different.
In fact, global atmospheric and climate models are better at describing the large picture than more regional and local characteristics. There is a limit to what they are able to describe in terms of local regional details, and it it reasonable to ask whether the response to changes in regional sea-ice cover is beyond the limitation of the global model. If different models give different answers, then it is likely that the response is not robust.

Another interesting question is whether the sea-ice the is whole story. Not long ago, there were some suggestions of a link between low solar activity and cold winters (this correlation, however, is so weak that you would never notice without statistical analysis. Also see comment here). Do these factors affect the circulation patterns over the North Atlantic? The sunspots tend to vary on a time scale of 10-12 years, but the NAO-index suggests that few of the extreme low values were repeated over two subsequent years. In other words, the NAO doesn’t show the same persistence as the sunspots. It will be interesting to see if this winter will break with previous patterns – if it does, that could be interpreted as a support of Petoukhov and Semenov hypothesis.
It is nevertheless no contradiction between a global warming and cold winters in regions like Europe. Rather, recent analysis suggest that the global mean temperature is marching towards higher values (see figure below), and Petoukhov and Semenov argue that the cold winter should be an expected consequence of a global warming.

Global mean near-surface air temperature from NCEP/NCAR reanalysis. Reanalyses are often not regarded as relaiable as more traditional analyses for long-term trends, but can nevertheless give some indication on where the last year lies interms of the recent past.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/12/cold-winter-in-a-world-of-warming/


Just as there is a difference between 'weather' and 'climate' there is a difference between opinion and fact, science and memory or common knowledge.

There are illustrations and graphs in support of the subject at the link.

T-Cat
01-04-2011, 03:05 PM
The planet has slightly warmed, that isn't in question.It has more than slightly warmed. The warming over the last century was at a rate 10-20 times faster than it has historically warmed coming out of recent ice ages.


The claims it is "man-made" is what I don't buy.You don't want to buy it.


We've just had some of the coldest weather ever in Florida the past two years and zero hurricanes.The earth is not Florida. And remember when you were complaining about how hot the summer was?


This crap is all cyclical, IMO.Based on what? Because of what you read on some crap right wing website? Changes in climate can be cyclical and they can be secular. But all changes in climate are due to forcings, the earth's climate does not change without a physical reason. And there is no cyclic forcing that comes even remotely close to explaining the current warming. Meanwhile the scientific research overwhelmingly shows that the increase in greenhouse gases is the primary cause of the warming.


Do you think Rev. Gore would be living large on energy if the sky was really about to fall? No.Ahh yes, when in doubt turn to rhetoric about Al Gore.

nobull
01-04-2011, 06:13 PM
Yes it was...I was responding to Mints illogical remarks. I should have written it in green to indicate sarcasm. :thumbsup:

Or just a wink. ;) I don't know the personas of everyone here yet to automatically know.

Keyser Soze
01-04-2011, 08:22 PM
Or just a wink. ;) I don't know the personas of everyone here yet to automatically know.

Ok...I'll remember that. You could help by not being so quick to jump...:D

Bill Cosby
01-05-2011, 12:49 AM
Could also help by posting a lot more..........lol

Keyser Soze
01-05-2011, 01:46 PM
Could also help by posting a lot more..........lol

Agreed!!! :D

nobull
01-05-2011, 06:13 PM
Ok...I'll remember that. You could help by not being so quick to jump...:D

Force of habit a' la other message boards. My apologies.

Bill Cosby
01-05-2011, 06:14 PM
Force of habit a' la other message boards. My apologies.


We do hope to cya posting more............:thumbsup:

nobull
01-05-2011, 06:17 PM
We do hope to cya posting more............:thumbsup:

Thanks! I intend to, but probably not daily due to other commitments. I do hate it, though, when I'm eager to join a conversation that's already several days old!

Bill Cosby
01-05-2011, 06:20 PM
Thanks! I intend to, but probably not daily due to other commitments. I do hate it, though, when I'm eager to join a conversation that's already several days old!

Yes, it is sometimes difficult to read several pages to get caught up but sometimes if there is something that catches your eye you can comment or ask a question on it........... lol