Global warming or new ice age: YOU'RE paying for our politicians' hysteria

Jul 6, 2011 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Daily Mail

Who would possibly have thought it? The latest news is that the world may be threatened by a sharp drop in temperatures, possibly so severe that it could herald a new mini ice age.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of24
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
litesong

Stanwood, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jul 6, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Making verbiage to promo his book, Mr. Booker, complains that AGW science is hysterical, yet uses no science or math while he throws hysterical AGW denier fits. Not mentioning that 2010 was or was tied for the hottest recorded year, he throws pictures of snow at you & shivers.
Fun Facts

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jul 7, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

2

2010 tied for the warmest year, at .498*C over the average, CRU. Or you can go with NOAA which has about a .6*C over average. Both state a .1*C +/- error rate.

Truth is, we have no idea. We can't even manage to agree on what the average temperature is, or which averaged data base fairly represents the average temperature.

Who decided that the world's average temperature was demonstrated by three decades in the 20th century?

And why would anyone accept an average temperature created by scientists who have destroyed or lost their source data?

We have had three cold winters, colder than we experienced in the last 30 years.

So what has changed. The PDO switched from positive to negative. The MOC switched to negative. Solar insolation went down dramatically. CO2 has continued it's steady increase.

Now 'they' are trying to tell us that the same emissions that cause global warming, those nasty coal fired plants, also cause global cooling.

Coal fired plants cause both cooling and warming at the same time. Does that mean that CO2 is not as powerful as SO? Have we changed the chemical values of coal and now the coal has more of this, and not as much as that?

What it should tell us, we don't know.

We really don't know what caused the recent warming. We see lots of things we think might have contributed to the warming, but have nothing that can show us just what and how much warming resulted from any one or multiple factors.

The predictions of global warming from CO2 have failed.

It just didn't happen.

We need to study climate the scientific way. Without the politics.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jul 7, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Funny how history repeats itself. In a decade or a little more there will be a major push to stop the coming ice age and the solution will be the exact same as for global warming. Electric cars, wind and solar power, biofuels, and all the rest.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jul 8, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

"We don't know," is the basis of climate science.
-
"The suddenness of the drop in Northern Hemisphere ocean temperatures relative to the Southern Hemisphere is difficult to reconcile with the relatively slow buildup of tropospheric aerosols," Thompson said.

"We don't know why the Northern Hemisphere ocean areas cooled so rapidly around 1970. But the cooling appears to be largest in a climatically important region of the ocean," Wallace said.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/...

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jul 8, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pollution not to blame for rapid ocean cooling, says Phil Jones paper

Research from UEA finds drop in temperature is too quick to be caused by the build-up of sulphur aerosols from fossil fuels
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/se...
Fun Facts

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jul 8, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Earthling-1 wrote:
Pollution not to blame for rapid ocean cooling, says Phil Jones paper
Research from UEA finds drop in temperature is too quick to be caused by the build-up of sulphur aerosols from fossil fuels
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/se...
This article was interesting. I have known about the cooling water explanation of the Younger Dryas. It is interesting that scientist are looking at a similar occurence in the 60s-70s.

A correlation, our earth is in a similar physical geographical location as it was during the time period mentioned in the above article. Precession. Since the Younger Dryas we have had two aspects of the precession cycle.

The Mayan calendar measures precession in relationship to the earth's passage through the center plane of the galaxy. The last time this happened was at the time as the Younger Dryas. At the time this article says we had a 'salinity ananomly'.

Does this mean we had a big ananomly 12,000 bp and a small one this time? Or was the big one 12,000 bp a series of small ones. Or as some have suggested a extra terrestrial impact in eastern Canada caused a massive melt, which would result in the same release of 'fresh water'.

I am not suggesting anything. I find it interesting that if you look, you can find all sorts of correlations that defy our current understanding.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jul 8, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ocean Cooling to Briefly Halt Global Warming, Researchers Say
April 30, 2008 13:00 EDT
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news...
In geological time, "briefly" could mean anything up to 100 thousand years or more, yete here we sit, talking about decades and 30 year periods where 'trends' can be identified.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jul 8, 2011
 
It's the speed at which it's happening, get with the program.
Fun Facts

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jul 9, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Earthling-1 wrote:
Ocean Cooling to Briefly Halt Global Warming, Researchers Say
April 30, 2008 13:00 EDT
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news...
In geological time, "briefly" could mean anything up to 100 thousand years or more, yete here we sit, talking about decades and 30 year periods where 'trends' can be identified.
Well, now we have coal powered plants in China causing cooling and the oceans causing cooling. Seems that the current round of scientists think the temps are cooling.

And the sun is in a very low activity cycle. But that can't be causing the cooling. LOL
http://www.solen.info/solar/cyclcomp.html

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Jul 9, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fun Facts wrote:
Well, now we have coal powered plants in China causing cooling and the oceans causing cooling. Seems that the current round of scientists think the temps are cooling.
And the sun is in a very low activity cycle. But that can't be causing the cooling. LOL
http://www.solen.info/solar/cyclcomp.html
It's a great shame to think that no matter what has happened and against all odds, warming continues unabated, "at an alarming rate."
ֿ
I'm over the Moon about it, because the last thing anyone would dare to hope for is another little or large ice age.
No death is fun, but if I had to choose between being wrapped up in several layers of clothing and freezing to death, or stripping off and burning to death from exposure to the Sun, I'd choose the latter, because at least I'd die nicely tanned.
litesong

Stanwood, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jul 9, 2011
 
Fun Facts wrote:
We need to study climate the scientific way. Without the politics.
Yes, we need to get rid of topix AGW deniers.
Fun Facts

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jul 9, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Litesong, advocating getting 'rid' of dissenting opinions is politics. Science is naturally a skeptics realm.
litesong

Stanwood, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Jul 9, 2011
 
fun farts wrote:
Does that mean that CO2 is not as powerful as SO?
Yes, didn't you know that? CO2 was always considered subtle. But it was always in the one direction of infra-red energy retention, has fairly long existence in the atmosphere, & man-made emissions are incredibly extensive.... 3 thousand thousand thousand thousand thousand KGs of infra-red energy absorbing GHG gas per century & growing.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Jul 9, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

litesout wrote:
Yes, we need to get rid of topix AGW deniers.
And how do you propose doing that, without first proving that, "The science is settled?"
litesong

Stanwood, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Jul 9, 2011
 
From Booker's article:
.....in the Seventies, U.S. scientists began to warn us the world was heading for a cooling so severe it might even herald a new ice age.
//////////
litesong wrote:

Of course, 1970's scientists did not state that severe cooling was going to come. 44 Science Papers were published in Science Journals studying AGW, while only 7 papers were written about global cooling.

Booker continues the AGW denier diatribe of the past.
Fun Facts

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Jul 9, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, didn't you know that? CO2 was always considered subtle. But it was always in the one direction of infra-red energy retention, has fairly long existence in the atmosphere, & man-made emissions are incredibly extensive.... 3 thousand thousand thousand thousand thousand KGs of infra-red energy absorbing GHG gas per century & growing.
Well then, coal fired plants shouldn't be a global warming problem as they produce more of the cooling element than the warming element.

No need to replace them with alternatives. No need to impose any carbon taxes.
litesong

Stanwood, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Jul 9, 2011
 
piddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling wrote:
Ocean Cooling to Briefly Halt Global Warming, Researchers Say
April 30, 2008 13:00 EDT
"piddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling" likes to cherry pick 3+year old articles, while overlooking other article paragraphs as in the paragraphs quoted below:

The world will become at least 2.5 degrees Celsius warmer by 2100, compared with the pre-industrial period, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said in March.

``We thought a lot about the way to present this because we don't want it to be turned around in the wrong way,'' Keenlyside said.``I hope it doesn't become a message of Exxon Mobil and other skeptics.''
//////////
litesong continues:
"piddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling" does try to extend the 'message of Exxon Mobil and other skeptics'.

However, "piddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling" works without upper level mathematics & science, & lots of upper floor oil, energy, repub, & business anti-AGW PeeR strategies.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Jul 9, 2011
 
litesout wrote:
44 Science Papers were published in Science Journals studying AGW, while only 7 papers were written about global cooling.
I know I must have made more than 5 million times mathematical errors, but at a rough guess, you've posted that same line at least 50 times over the years.

Is this one of the cooling stories?
1975 : Climatologists Blamed Record Tornadoes On Global Cooling
http://community.history.com/topic/38825/t/19...
'Global Cooling' Exhibit Still on Display at the Smithsonian
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/09/smith...
Climate Change in the 70s: Global Cooling
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/4670...
Yes, the 70s Glowbull cooling scare was a myth, just like the current Glowbull warming scare is.
litesong

Stanwood, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Jul 9, 2011
 
fun farts wrote:
Litesong, advocating getting 'rid' of dissenting opinions is politics. Science is naturally a skeptics realm.
topix AGW deniers have no upper level science or mathematics background, are enmeshed in oil, energy, business & repub PeeR & politics, but egotistically think they present scientific skeptism. Their egotism, which has led to slimy filthy vile pukey proud racist pigisms, alleged threats & proud threats is the reason that topix AGW deniers will never escape topix, itself a bastion of egotistical conservative politics.

topix AGW deniers eliminate themselves from meaningful AGW debate.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Jul 9, 2011
 
Pachauri wrote:
The world will become at least 2.5 degrees Celsius warmer by 2100, compared with the pre-industrial period, is what I said in March.
Well, Raj, you'll have to wait and see how wrong your team was.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of24
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••