Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Full story: Newsday 47,015
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38377 Aug 23, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>

IF...this slowdown in the rate of warming is supposed to be a precursor to a genuine cooling, then I need you to tell me what is reversing a 100+ year trend. Tell us (and back it up) what the models missed that is suddenly causing a reversal of warming.
What caused the Little Ice Age?
No Warming

Waverly, OH

#38378 Aug 23, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
We just started measuring the deep oceans about 10 years ago, how do we even know what is "normal" in regards to the warming of the deep oceans?
You need to realize the deep oceans only came into existence 10 years ago :} Its the blogs, they have scripted these replies for people and that's why you see it over and over, even from different posters. I don't read posts from a few just because of the repetitive aspect.

I'll post a link to a Hansen study that says the oceans are not warming. Give me a few minutes.
No Warming

Waverly, OH

#38379 Aug 23, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
We just started measuring the deep oceans about 10 years ago, how do we even know what is "normal" in regards to the warming of the deep oceans?
Here is the abstract from the Hansen study 2005-2010. The first paragraph shows an energy imbalance of .58 watts, meaning earth is taking in more energy than is being radiated out. When you look at the second paragraph you see -1.6 watts. That -1.6 is the decline of energy imbalance from the previous study period 1993-2008.

Even James Hansen says the oceans are taking up less heat and claims aerosols and a solar minimum are the cause.
No Warming

Waverly, OH

#38380 Aug 23, 2013
Sorry, forgot to post the link.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/13421/2011/...
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38382 Aug 23, 2013
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, can be frustrating at times...
And I understand why you wish to not share.
Secrets are all the rage in the field of Proprietary Climate Studies.
May you find peace in your faith,
-koolaid
Exactly!

The all-encompassing tentacles of the insidious Proprietary Climate Information vault extend even to refusing help to Topix climate change deniers.

We are truly very close to controlling mankind!

Join us, or be annihilated!
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38383 Aug 23, 2013
No Warming wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is the abstract from the Hansen study 2005-2010. The first paragraph shows an energy imbalance of .58 watts, meaning earth is taking in more energy than is being radiated out. When you look at the second paragraph you see -1.6 watts. That -1.6 is the decline of energy imbalance from the previous study period 1993-2008.
Even James Hansen says the oceans are taking up less heat and claims aerosols and a solar minimum are the cause.
How long long do aerosols from volcanoes usually stay in the atmoshere? It seems like we had already seen the effects of cooling from Mount Pinatubo. Is that normal to have a delayed effect? Since Hansen is admitting it is the sun, it just seems as though everyone shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the cosmic ray theory. Plate tectonics was also dismissed initially.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#38384 Aug 23, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
How long long do aerosols from volcanoes usually stay in the atmoshere? It seems like we had already seen the effects of cooling from Mount Pinatubo. Is that normal to have a delayed effect? Since Hansen is admitting it is the sun, it just seems as though everyone shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the cosmic ray theory. Plate tectonics was also dismissed initially.
Answer to all your questions: Including the aerosol diversion & the sun,volcanoes and every other myth you may want to cling to that avoids the obvious answer to all.

The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
No Warming

Waverly, OH

#38385 Aug 23, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
How long long do aerosols from volcanoes usually stay in the atmoshere? It seems like we had already seen the effects of cooling from Mount Pinatubo. Is that normal to have a delayed effect? Since Hansen is admitting it is the sun, it just seems as though everyone shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the cosmic ray theory. Plate tectonics was also dismissed initially.
See what I mean, James Hansen takes a guess at the issue and here comes Oz with the blogs to solve the problem.

Less Fact will post the same blog at least 5 times a day to reinforce the premise.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#38386 Aug 23, 2013
krusty wrote:
Since Hansen is admitting it is the sun, it just seems as though everyone shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the cosmic ray theory
"Since Hansen is admitting the sun has caused cooling, shouldn't we be thinking that the sun causes warming?"

There's a logical fallacy there.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#38387 Aug 23, 2013
No Warming wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is the abstract from the Hansen study 2005-2010. The first paragraph shows an energy imbalance of .58 watts, meaning earth is taking in more energy than is being radiated out. When you look at the second paragraph you see -1.6 watts. That -1.6 is the decline of energy imbalance from the previous study period 1993-2008.
Even James Hansen says the oceans are taking up less heat and claims aerosols and a solar minimum are the cause.
The two figures are for totally different things. You continue to try the 'apples vs oranges' tactic.
dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#38388 Aug 23, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that on average it has been a good thing. Above average, not so good.
Agreed, IF solar activity remains quiet and IF the unexplained lack of CO2 driven warming continues the warming will likely continue to be beneficial to many... including us in Minneapolis.
dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#38389 Aug 23, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
"Since Hansen is admitting the sun has caused cooling, shouldn't we be thinking that the sun causes warming?"
There's a logical fallacy there.
Cool... Would you explain the logic of that statement , if you don't mind?
jerry k

Waverly, OH

#38390 Aug 23, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
The two figures are for totally different things. You continue to try the 'apples vs oranges' tactic.
Its only 2 paragraphs long, read something other than a blog just one time.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#38391 Aug 23, 2013
jerry k wrote:
<quoted text>
Its only 2 paragraphs long, read something other than a blog just one time.
It can be any length. The two figures are still defined for different things.

The first is net flow of energy. Less heat is being radiated at the top of the atmosphere than is entering. Thus we gain a certain amount of heat energy in the surface layers. It is relate to the 'lag' in warming from the current GHG concentration.

The second is the separated cooling effect of sulphate aerosols as a forcing on the total system.

Apples vs oranges. You need to start understanding simple English. You would probably still make a fool of yourself but at least you would have SOME idea of what you were mixing up.
iwantheat

Ashland, KY

#38392 Aug 23, 2013
http://www.trunews.com/listen/ John Casey speaks on the little ice age that is upon us now.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#38393 Aug 23, 2013
iwantheat wrote:
http://www.trunews.com/listen/ John Casey speaks on the little ice age that is upon us now.
John Casey is neither a climatologist nor solar physicist. He has a degree in management. And I guess he managed to send YOU down the river..
iwantheat

Ashland, KY

#38394 Aug 23, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
John Casey is neither a climatologist nor solar physicist. He has a degree in management. And I guess he managed to send YOU down the river..
Apparently Al Gore stuck that hockey stick up your rump you cant see truth. lamo

Since: Aug 13

Kailua, HI

#38395 Aug 23, 2013
iwantheat wrote:
http://www.trunews.com/listen/ John Casey speaks on the little ice age that is upon us now.
Do you bother to fact check anything?

Yup, turns out that even people who claim that global warming isn't happening think that John L. Casey, the director and sole named employee of the SSRC, is a "scam artist trying to get his hands in your pocket" who lacks "any credibility in climate research." Indeed, the SSRC's website acknowledges that Casey lacks both education and experience with climate science.
I have to stress how incredibly easy it was to determine that the Space and Science Research Center shouldn't be taken seriously. Basically, all I had to do was Google the group's name. Apparently, that was too much for poor Jim Hoft.

None of those "experts" or "members of the SSRC staff" are named anywhere on the website; Casey is the only one affiliated with the group specifically mentioned. Why aren't the other "experts" and "staff" named? Either Casey is worried about dazzling us with the big names he has behind him, or they are too modest to want to be linked to such an impressive organization as the SSRC. Or, you know, they don't exist.

In the third link that comes up when you Google the SSRC's name ("More on the 'Space and Science Research Center' hoax"), climate skeptic Tom Nelson suggests that Casey is a "hoaxer, fraud, or scam artist." He also links to skeptic site JunkScience.com 's take on Casey:
We think he's a scam artist trying to get his hands in your pockets but couldn't see how he expected to do so -- now he's told us. He's looking for 'meaningful funding' and he thinks the skeptic community might be eager enough to slay the catastrophic warming myth to fork over some cash.

We'd like to think skeptics are not a good target for scammers hunting the gullible but with Al raking in cash with his fear campaign it was inevitable some crook would try to siphon some off with another 'angle'. If you must give your hard-earned away bear in mind that JunkScience.com is always chronically short of funds.

In a separate post on Casey ("Looks like a hoax to me"), Nelson notes climate skeptic Leif Svalgaard's comments on Caey:
The 'Space and Science Research Center' and John Casey should not be relied on for valid research. I know of Mr. Casey and have checked his credentials and they are not legitimate. He has tried to recruit even me into his band of 'experts'. I would not place any value on the ramblings of the press release.
iwantheat

Ashland, KY

#38396 Aug 23, 2013
Time will prove global warming is wrong and it be within two years that this lie will become apparent to all. You are right, money is the drive in the lie. The lie is global warming.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#38397 Aug 23, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Does the IPCC even take any of these papers into consideration?
No. I first started my investigation of global warming when the IPCC lost the MWP. Before that I was like most people I thought the earth was warming because of the increased use of fossil fuels. No reason not to believe the scientists. But when the MWP got lost, I started to look for myself, and I started with the IPCC.

Glad I did. What I found was a very narrow view of the science that was available. I like history and I've studied it a lot. So I knew about the MWP and that it was global. Was surprised that the IPCC didn't.

Then I took a look at their paleoclimate section. Was surprised there too. Then the ice core data, missing info is a big problem for the IPCC.

Their position on an extended Holocene really got my attention and took me to the solar section.

The IPCC is really just as good as their 95% confidence that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. And so are their references.

The Himalaya Glacier melt story came from a WWF magazine. The WWF got it from a New Scientist article. The New Scientist writer composed his article from a phone interview with a scientist who was studying glacier melt.

The scientist published his results before the IPCC lifted the story from the WWF. No prediction of glacier melt by 2035 was in the published paper, but that didn't matter to the IPCC. They didn't even look.

When asked, the editor of the IPCC glacier section stated that he wasn't an expert on glaciers and had to rely on credible sources for his information.

He thought the World Wildlife Federation was credible enough.

No, the IPCC does not consider anything that does not fit their agenda.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jackson-Heights Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 38 min Da GreatDirtyWaters 308,415
NY Who do you support for Governor in New York in ... (Oct '10) 2 hr conklincolt 6,467
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 4 hr Brian_G 305,850
Moms and Women of Divorce...Did you Have A Corr... (Mar '13) 6 hr Rivas 10
Nassau/Suffolk High School Football (Nov '11) 6 hr Driver7789 10,734
OBAMA is the BEST PRESIDENT EVER (Nov '10) 7 hr Obama the tool 15,245
NY Who do you support for Attorney General in New ... (Oct '10) 20 hr NAVYVET 760

Jackson-Heights News Video

Jackson-Heights Jobs

Jackson-Heights People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Jackson-Heights News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Jackson-Heights

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]