Global Warming?

[toppop52]

Like Dr. Frank, I don't claim there is no overall warming, there always have been periods of warming and cooling. It's man's contribution or lack thereof I argue.

 

[toppop52]

I'd rather trust the active climatologists than a has been TV personality. Your "expert" Dr Frank has zero standing in the scientific community as far as I can tell and has done nothing but predict hot and humid weather in Houston for the past twenty plus years. How that makes him an expert you decide to trust on macro climate changes is beyond me. Oh, wait, he is a denier and writes puff piece op ed articles for denier blogs. That explains it. Lightweight.

Zero standing in your closed minded climate change cultist community maybe, he's highly respected otherwise and always has been. Of course if you deny that it shows your ignorance, which you've never been bashful to do.

 

[toppop52]

I know, all 700 are just stupid deniers....
I agree there is a "stupid denier" here, he's just too narcissistic to recognize himself on th island, with his tractor.:laughing:

We don’t know what percentage of the relevant scientific community actually supports the AGW consensus, and to what degree, because the pro-AGW crowd is the only one that’s been doing the counting.

Some scientists previously counted on as holding the AGW consensus have changed their mind, complaining that the process has become politicized and that their research has been distorted.
The number of scientists dissenting against the AGW consensus continues to grow. Here, for example, are some 700 scientists that disagree with the AGW consensus.

 

[RobertBrown]

How to make Gulliblel warming Koolaid drinkers go crazy YOU PROVIDE FACTS
Antarctic Sea Ice Hits Record ... High?

Daniel Stone
National Geographic News
Published October 13, 2012

Despite frequent headlines about a warming planet, melting sea ice, and rising oceans, climate analysts pointed to a seeming bright spot this week: During Southern Hemisphere winters, sea ice in the Antarctic, the floating chunks of frozen ocean water, is actually increasing.

In fact, in late September, satellite data indicated that Antarctica was surrounded by the greatest area of sea ice ever recorded in the region: 7.51 million square miles (19.44 million square kilometers), the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center announced Thursday. Even so, it's a slow rate of growthé*�bout one percent over last year溶ot nearly enough to offset melting in the Arctic, which broke records just weeks ago.

National Geographic asked Eric Rignot, a NASA researcher and earth systems professor at UC Irvine, whether the data is good news, and what it means for the rise of global sea levels, which are fueled by melting ice.

This Antarctic record seems counter to what we often hear about sea ice shrinking. How can we explain growing sea ice?

If the world was warming up uniformly, you would expect the sea ice cover to decrease in the Antarctic, but it's not. The reason for that is because the Antarctic is cooler than the rest of the world. It's warming up as well but not as fast as other places.

So you have the warming world and a cold Antarctica, and the difference between the two is increasing. That makes the winds around Antarctica move a little bit faster. There's also a difference that comes from the depletion of ozone in the stratosphere in the Antarctic, which makes the stratosphere colder.

That's the leading explanation for what we're seeing in the Antarctic, but you have to acknowledge that the effect is very small.

How does this news relate to other studies showing that the melting of Antarctic continental ice is contributing to a rise in sea level?

[Growing sea ice] has no effect whatsoever on sea level, because sea ice is already floating on the ocean. It does not displace sea level. It's frozen seawater, so whether it's frozen or liquid, it doesn't change the sea level.

While Arctic sea ice is decreasing, the Antarctic is now slightly increasing. Why is there so much variation between Arctic and Antarctic ice?

Well we have a continent on the South Pole. On the North Pole we have nothing but ocean. In the Arctic you see full-fledged warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, plus increased ice transport [out of the region, which removes cold air and water]. So all of these effects contribute to reduce the sea ice cover in the Arctic.

In the Antarctic, you have to think of it as its own climate system. It's a big continent isolated from the rest of the world. It has ocean all around it. It has wind regimes that blow clockwise around it and isolate it. It acts differently from the Arctic, which is completely connected to the rest of the North Hemisphere.

Considering we regularly hear about the planet's stressed climate system, is this good news?

Really, it's consistent with our understanding of a warming world. Some of the regional details are not something we can easily predict. But the general trends of decay of the sea ice cover and decay of the Greenland ice sheets and ice caps is in line with what we expect.

The Antarctic has not been warming up as fast as the models thought. It's warming up, but slower. So it's all consistent with a warming planet.

DON'T YOU LOVE THE LAST LINE, NO MATTER what evidence they find it's STILL a WARMING PLANET BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

THAT'S A GREAT ARTICLE!
Thanks for posting it Cat....Maybe you should read it?:laughing::laughing::laughing:

 

[tcreeley]

SORRY Gullible warming Koolaid drinkers you've been BUSTED
Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate - Forbes



Just Use Logic

Do you believe in Man-Made Global warming? Well, you shouldn't!

Why?

You don't need a huge think-tank to see through the propaganda. Here's how to figure out the truth for yourself:

1. Have you looked at your own outside thermometer? Record lows and snow storms abound. My temps are warmer than ever now, don't hit the -42 lows we used to hit

2. Seventh grade physics shows that CO2's molecular weight makes it very heavy. It can't rise high enough to cause the greenhouse effect. wouldn't that suffocate us?

Yes, there is a greenhouse effect, but it's mostly caused by water vapor! H2O is much lighter than CO2.

3. College freshman statistics will show you that the error rate in temperature samples used is greater than the claimed temperature rise. source or example?

4. Glaciers in Greenland have recently been shown to be getting thicker, not thinner. Same with antarctic ice, which is never mentioned by warming alarmists. source ?

5. Stories of polar bears declining are lies, according to our government's own figures. source ?

6. CO2 is plant food! When the earth was young, there was very little free oxygen. It was poisonous to the few life forms here (primitive bacteria and plants). It increased to today's levels partly as exhaust from plants and partly from a few comets "visiting."

7. Clearing of forests happens only where governments own the forest. Private ownership of forests results in cyclical growing and cutting. They don't waste the economic value of their own land! Take a look at the huge forests in Georgia and Florida, owned by Weyerhauser & other lumber companies. In Maine the paper companies have no problem clearcutting their privately owned forests- they get the value they can and move on, or they own enough to wait the 30-40 years to cut again

8. Sunspot activity is in a cycle in which it reduces warming radiation from the sun. This is actually causing a cooling cycle.

9. What about recent record cold temperatures and snow storms? Check out NOAH data- even with temps are up & ask people in Canada about their lessened snowfall and warmer temps.

10. Why is it that the big scares always mean big profits for companies connected to governments. E.g. GE owns NBC, which is scaring us. But GE makes big dollars from sales of generators, nuclear, windmills, and solar to governments. business, just as coal and oil claim there is no warming

11. Those who want US to completely change our lives are immune. How about Al Gore making his millions - driving his SUVs, owning several energy inefficient HOMES, plura. He tells us to stop using gas, while he is private-jetting around to give big money speeches? I want to change things, I'll be dead before they do change, I can't afford to go green, - there is no practical benefit for me if we address GW- but I am disturbed by what I see happening to our natural habitats

12. We're supposed to forget similar false fears. Many of the same companies made big money off the "ozone layer" scam. Remember that one? It has also proven false. But, the media which scared us about it has remained silent. Instead, they come up with a new scary theory. source ? ozone hole is not a scam- has been better since cut in flourocarbons- but is still here + think UV and cancer rates- melanoma

13. About 7 years ago, the same government-connected scientists and insiders were trying to scare us with the coming ice age. Remember that? I don't remember that, remember Kyota agreement- 2000 -- 7yr ago was Bush era- must have been his people

14. Volcanoes and the ocean are by FAR larger sources of CO2 and other "greenhouse" gases. Many, many, many multiples of the amounts we exhaust. the straw that breaks the camel's back?

15. NASA was actually caught faking "warming" data. They simply copied September temperatures and submitted the same figures for October. They then claimed October was the hottest it's been in decades. source ?

If "Global Warming" is true, why fudge figures? I am very skeptical when someone - especially a government insider - is trying to scare me and grab my wallet at the same time. I've been seeing examples of global warming long before TBN started threads on the topic - no one is scaring anyone

Fear is used to turn off the logical part of your brain. It makes you an easier "mark." what are you afraid of?

So, beware of the scare! Don't believe "officials" just because of their title.

Just think for yourself! Please! I figured it out long before Al Gore came along- that we had global warming. I never read a report on it until I joined TBN in 2011. I made my mind up on my own through a lifetime of my own observations.

Global Warming is Fake - How YOU can Tell

I think your fear of spending money is dulling your power of observation and thinking about global warming. You are being reinforced by people with a similar desire not to spend money. ...But why have the insurance companies addressed global warming, and why are they adjusting their rates to account for it? They do so because they are smart, and save money by addressing it.

Global warming at work- Jopolin MO

35 Devastating Photos Of The Joplin, Missouri Tornado

Joplin, Missouri, one year after tornadoes devastate town - The Washington Post

 

[tcreeley]

Like Dr. Frank, I don't claim there is no overall warming, there always have been periods of warming and cooling. It's man's contribution or lack thereof I argue.

How many posts of mine did you go after for saying there was warming....! Slowly you are changing.... free your mind of the dark side Luke, step into the light!:cool2::drink::cool2:

 

[IslandTractor]

He's not a denier per se, if you have first grade or better reading comprehension you'll see that he believes in taking everyone's opinion under study and rejecting out of hand if it disagrees with your views, such as you and the other climate change cultists do.

Sorry Top, Dr Frank is a flyweight has been with no more understanding of the science behind AGW than the typical boobilious weather girl on TV. He has never done climate research after leaving NHC about 25 years ago and is now simply a TV personality far out of touch with hard climate science. If he is one of the "skeptics" he defends then that doesn't speak well of the qualifications and experience of skeptics. His reiteration of the absurd point that "CO2 is not a pollutant but vital for plant life" is a bizarre non argument that seems designed to capture the attention of non scientists like yourself who have muddled ideas and are prone to uncritically accept catch phrases. What a stupid remark. No climate scientist, regardless of their opinion on AGW, would ever state such an absurd point and expect to be taken seriously.

Find us an anti AGW scientist who actually publishes RESEARCH, not op ed pieces in political blogs. Is that asking too much?

 

[/pine]

Find us an anti AGW scientist who actually publishes RESEARCH

How long is it going to take you and the other tree hugging bleeding hearts to finally realize all the RESEARCH in the world is NOT going to resolve the issue of climate change?

It's going to take time...so much time that I doubt anyone on TBN will still be alive...

 

[IslandTractor]

How long is it going to take you and the other tree hugging bleeding hearts to finally realize all the RESEARCH in the world is NOT going to resolve the issue of climate change?

It's going to take time...so much time that I doubt anyone on TBN will still be alive...

Now there is an honest anti intellectual opinion. I suppose that two years before the phone or light bulb were invented one could have made similar statements regarding voice communication or lighting. It is not honestly possible to state when a scientific milestone will be reached in the future. As your buddy Feynman points out science is an iterative process with incremental improvements in theories and models that get closer and closer to the truth. It is not like waiting around for your lottery number to come up. We already have considerable insight into the processes involved in AGW but some individuals, virtually all politically motivated, continue to take a nihilist view of the subject. They are Sophists, arguing for arguments sake and attempting to simply stall action.

Research is the only way to understand this problem and how long it takes to achieve actionable consensus is debatable. Some would argue that we already have sufficient data and understanding to take action. I'd agree so long as we accept the caveat that there is more to learn.

If you have an epidemic of disease, it is not necessary or reasonable to await final analysis and pinpointing of the source before taking action to prevent spread. You close a restaurant when you recognize its customers are getting sick, you don't wait until you prove which cook is a Salmonella carrier. I think the same argument applies easily in the case of potentially devastating climate change.

 

[houstonscott]

I'm sure NOT a scientist, but I wonder how much of Sandy and any extreme weather we may get before the end of the year could be due to the planets aligning this year. The magnetics of the planet are sure to be affected. I believe that the planet has gone through alot of changes in IT's lifetime and will go through alot more, weather we are here to see it or not. We have only been here a relatively short time so how can you say with any conviction that we caused all this. We weren't around to cause the last Iceage, weather runs in cycles we have extremely little control of what happens. With the billions of dollars that has been throw at all off this there has been no provable evidence, just that a few people have become extremely wealthy by people worring about something we have no control over.
just my 2 cents worth

Randy

While the Myan's may have a nice calendar they missed the aligning of the plants by a little over ten yeas, it's already happened. Also if you really investigate you find no predictions of the end of time, just a period where many calendars reset on same day. It would be like you discovering a civilization in America 2000 years from now and you find a calendar, and then make the claim America was predicting the end of time on Dec 31 because that's the end of the calendar. It's simply an urban myth. Goes to show you what people will believe though, almost anything.

HS