Posting in Energy
China is blaming global warming for the cold, and there may be something to that. Instability is increasing in global weather patterns as average temperatures warm.
Not just here. England was so cold a picture of it from a NASA satellite became instantly famous (right).
Wrong. Just the opposite.
Some of the evidence can be seen on Fox's own story, comparing temperatures to normal across the northern hemisphere.
Sure, it was colder than normal in the temperate zone, but look at the pole. It was much warmer than normal in Greenland, in eastern Siberia, at Sarah Palin's house.
China is blaming global warming for the cold, and there may be something to that. Instability is increasing in global weather patterns as average temperatures warm.
In the Arctic, warmer weather means less ice is being produced, meaning there is less ice to melt this summer.
Glaciers and ice caps are natural temperature regulators. They act the way fat acts on your body. When there is nothing to eat, you essentially eat your own fat. This is what got your ancestors through famines. It may be why you have such high cholesterol now.
Ice takes a lot of heat to warm even one degree, just as fat is harder to metabolize than other forms of energy your body stores. Once it's gone, however, temperatures can rise very, very fast. Thin people who don't metabolize food efficiently die fast in famines.
We know what happens when glaciers disappear from mountains, as is now happening on Kilimanjaro. No water flows for the long, hot summer. The land around a de-glaciated mountain becomes desert.
The same thing is happening right now, in the Arctic, to the whole world. While you're shivering, we're losing our global temperature regulator, the globe's fat.
Once that's gone global warming can take off like a rocket.
Cold enough for you? It's your final warning.
Jan 12, 2010
Thank you for the information your provide. sesli chat SesliSohbet Sesli Sohbet Sesli Chat SesliChat siteleri sesli.
I can't believe the rubbish that spills out of so many home made experts. Some one above implied all the nastiness is coming from the pro-warming people on here. Seems to me every article on this topic has the anti-warming people making some of the dumbest, uninformed and extremely nasty insults I have read. They contribule little to the debate but contribute many ugly emotionally driven insults. Dana is the target of so many bad mouthed anti-warmers. These shallow thinkers should be ashamed. They attack the pro-warmers when a mistake is made and go around slinging insults like a moron would. Funny how they go totally quiet when an anti-warmer makes bigger mistakes more often. Both sides have made errors but the anti lobby seem to make the biggest ones. They should pull back and re-group and do their homework with some calm logic. Other wise they simply discredit themselves and their fellow disclaimers.
@adornoe: Of course! The 11-year cooling cycle must explain why so much of the Arctic is melting! What idiots we've been! @craigkra: Just to be picky, the Union Flag is the crosses of Saint Andrew (of Scotland), St Patrick (of Ireland), and St George (of England). The Welsh flag is a dragon, but didn't make it into the flag. @riverat1: You're forgetting that the fall of Atlantis is evidence of how bad the global warming was - it was flooded by the rising oceans as all of the ice in the WHOLE PLANET melted and started boiling. Sorry, need to take my pills.
Nope, This is the beginning of the modern Ica Age..... You heard it here first from me. Ivan S Kirkpatrick. AGW is a hoax. The greenhouse gas theory on which AGW is based is nonsense. Any introductory engineering class in Heat Transfer teaches that heat transfer is from hot to cold and that it is not possible for a colder atmosphere to warm up a warmer earth. The sun warms the earth and the earth warms the atmosphere. Any ?scientists? that purport to show how this can work have a long way to go in understanding basic thermodynamics and heat transfer. This is the great Hoax of the 21st century. There is a very clear climate cycle of warming every 1500 years even in the ice ages.
Please consider that the whole "global warming" issue is a power play. The "Global Warming Treaty" that was drafted in Stockholm provided for the transfer of wealth from the USA to poorer countries. It provided for the forfeiture of sovereignty. Perhaps as a first step to one world government. In any case a foreign committee, where the USA has only one vote,
American Thinker has a couple of postings that explain the mathematical science behind what Mann did, and why he did it the way that he did. They also explain why what Mann did was not honest, and against protocols for the presentation of scientific information. It's more understandable if you have a graduate degree in statistics, but most people can get an idea for what went on.
Let's say that I accepted everything that you said about global warming. You prove that the current proposals make no sense. The Cap & Trade programs under consideration is a massive energy tax structure with a bent towards the redistribution of wealth. Even proponents don't think it will have any appreciable impact. It would, however, result in hundreds of billions of dollars being moved around the world. So, if life as we know it is going to end, why does the solution not address the problem? The fact is that nobody expects C02 emissions to be reduced. But the "alarmists" seem willing to bet that if only rich countries give enough money to poor countries that everything will be okay. Now do you see what it's all about?
Those insulting Dana are out of line. Her position is one commonly held by scientists, even if other scientists disagree. Also, her point is valid. Just because certain parts of the planet is undergoing a cooling trend does not mean that there is a long-term warming trend. Even if the entire planet were in the middle of a 20 year cooling trend, it wouldn't prove much about the long-term trend. I think both the alarmists and the realists (aka the deniers) agree generally with that. But GW alarmists have set themselves up by pointing to tiny warming blips, and even unrelated weather phenomenon to win public support for their positions. Chickens come home to roost. But all that aside, only True Believers are not pausing to reflect on what the recent revelations mean for the supposed scientific support for AGW.
79 posts as of this. Whether you believe Global Warming or not, convictions do not change. But it is entertaining.
To whom other than those perpetrating the fraud? Of course now everyone is being forced to back off in the name of saving their reputations: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999051.ece
Look it up folks...It's in the conference notes. To those who do not think that Greenland was actually green when the Vikings found it, heed your prophet. In Copenhagen, Al Gore announced a report stating that all of the Arctic sea ice will be gone by 2014 without huge cuts in CO2 emissions. The glaciers on Greenland would be 100% gone within a few decades. If the slight warming they claim has happened over the last century is going too permanently melt the Arctic sea ice and Greenland?s glaciers in my lifetime than I ask?......... Why say it is impossible that Greenland was green during the Medieval Warming Trend when global temperatures were higher than they are now and higher for a much longer time? If I am wrong is Al Gore wrong to?
The "Hockey Stick" graph had some problems but it was a useful addition to the scientific literature at the time. Read this. The analysis for historical temperature reconstructions have been done by a number of others without Mann's code and they substantially match what Mann came up with. Some comments and code are pretty meaningless in the absence of context. I've written stuff like that in my coding career when I'm testing the code. Unless you can take it all the way and show that there was deliberate falsification you have nothing but speculation. "HI", I may have been a bit over the top in my previous comment but it gets tiresome when you keep repeating demonstrably false information. From all that I know about climate change, and I've been following it since the 1980's, we're close to being in a dire situation. Even if we stopped emitting excess CO2 tomorrow the warming would continue for several hundred years (most of it in the first 50 or 75 though) and sea level rise will be around a meter. Many if not most of the effects projected by the IPCC report are happening sooner than predicted and it's probably only going to get worse. (And don't come back with the Himalayan glaciers thing, it was an error but it's also only a piece of secondary evidence.)
Try something new in your life. Do your own research and make up your own mind. Did you learn about Global Warming from Wikipedia? Big mistake. at least 50% of the information listed in Wikipedia is in accurate because anybody can go in and alter a legitimate posting. When you dig into global warming you will be very surprised what you can learn from sciences that look at global warming as a systemic issue, not just a climate issue. Did you know that different volcanos have different chemical signitures? Some pump out massive amounts of CO2 (triggers warming), some massive amounts of sulfur dioxide (triggers global cooling) and still other pump out massive amounts of water vapor which is yet another temperature altering gas. Do you know that Greenland is rising out of the ocean? It called plate rebound. Look it up and see that many geologists say that is why Greenlands glaciers are sliding into the sea faster. Glaciers calving faster into the sea is not always weather related. Did you know that the earth has gone through 2 heating and cooling cycles in the past 30 years? Both jump started by gigantic volcanic eruptions. The world is a complex place and to blame global warming on man generated CO2, which is less than 1% of all CO2 output, is narrow minded.
Did anyone else notice that all the hatred, anger and bitterness expressed here is coming from the people who believe in and support Global Warming? I thought the trend was worth pointing out.
Because he's been exposed as a fraud. Instead of getting grants, he should be under investigation by the AG. The "Hockey Stick" was exposed as a fraud as far back as 2003, when Mann et-al refused to release the data behind it. It was left to other independent researchers to expose the fraud. The released e- mail from the University of East Anglia?s Climate Research Unit merely confirmed what we already knew. If anything, it demonstrated that the fraud was even worse than we originally suspected. (Clearly, we were not cynical enough) 1 ; 2 ; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!! 3 ; 4 yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904] 5 valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,- 0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor 6 if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!' 7 8 yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey) What is that you might ask? It's the coded from Mann's program that produces the stick.
?The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed ? and hence clamorous to be led to safety ? by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.? - H. L. Mencken Or, if not entirely imaginary, at least exaggerated beyond reason.
Global climate change has been happening for millions of years. It just so happens that we are in a warming cycle right now. Nothing we do now or in the future is going to change that!!! It's going to happen, we are just along for the ride. Let's spend our money on being ready for the change that is coming, not on trying to stop it. Why are scientists and politicians such dumb asses about this????
Whatever I might think of this article (not much, see item 63 above,) the fact of a gradually warming global climate is irrefutable, as is the contribution to that warming made by greenhouse gases. Of course, following Rahm Immanuel's infamous dictate that "no good crisis should be wasted", many political "scientists" and "political scientists" have exaggerated the effectiveness of squelching the production of those gases while also exaggerating the consequences of failure to do so and minimizing the costs of so doing. For some, this has resulted in fame and fortune, e.g., Al Gore and his famous science fiction movie which won him a Nobel Prize. Our problem (unsolved) is to separate the reasonable actions which we might take from the "Oh My God, the sky is falling and the world is burning up!" hysteria promoted by many who have ulterior motives, including personal financial motives and/or a grab for power. A great deal of warming that has not yet occurred is already dialed in. It is clear that whatever the US does will play a rather small part overall in the worldwide balance of greenhouse gases: China and India will dominate the future production. It is likely that China's GDP alone will surpass that of the US in 10 years, and given their 80% reliance on coal (vs. ours, 20% and declining,) their CO2 output will soar. They have, in effect, said that they will make no significant effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Under these circumstances, anyone suggesting that the US should throttle our economy to "stop global warming" is either woefully ignorant or actively seeking to deceive someone. I believe that the reasonable coarse for the US is to concentrate on resource conservation, including but not exclusively non-renewable fuels, which is essential to the future of America. This will also have as a side-effect a significant reduction of greenhouse gas production. But the criterion for success should not be carbon emission: That is beyond our control. Cap-and-trade is just a way of setting up a new tax system while giving preference to the United Mine Workers and other large contributors. We would do better with a tax on extracted calories or joules (units of energy) from fossil and nuclear fuels, to encourage keeping them in the ground, to discourage their import, and to encourage their replacement with renewable energy resources.
The people who believe know that to do nothing will mean that either nothing happens or our planet is irevocably damaged sinirsiz porno izle sikis yap blog seks izle sikis izle
Hates Idiots, I challenge you to show me any rigorous scientific data that Greenland has been ice free in the last 10,000 years. You won't find it. They've drilled ice cores from the center of the Greenland ice sheet that goes back more than 100,000 years. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet It's generally believed that the Greenland ice sheet first formed around 2 million years ago and Greenland has never been totally ice free since then. Around 1000 some ice around the perifery melted back a bit but if you could go back and ask Erik the Red about it he'd laugh in your face about your assertion that Greenland was ice free. Shangri-La/Shambhala is a myth much like Atlantis. The Medieval Warming Period appears to primarily be limited to lands around the North Atlantic with little evidence of it affecting the Southern Hemisphere. Go ahead and live in your fantasy world if you like, I prefer to live in reality. John McGrew, The "hockey stick" graph is only discredited in the minds of you and people like you who don't want it to be true. The original had some minor statistical errors but has subsequently been shown to be substantially correct when fixing the errors didn't change it much. Newer graphs of the same thing done by others show a fuzzier hockey stick handle than the original graph but otherwise match it pretty well. Why shouldn't Michael Mann, a leading scientist in his field, get grants. You can investigate him all you want but you won't find much to discredit him. I guess he's too good at covering his tracks. (That last was sarcasm in case you don't understand.)
Thskyuo Sohbet Sohbet Et mynet sohbet mynet Chat ara? muayene g?zellik salonu vidyo arsiv kiralik bobcat
Anyone else catch this? Michael Mann, creator of the long-since discredited "hockey stick" graph (that was formerly the showpiece of the IPCC reports and Al Gore's movie) and featured player in the East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit e-mail has received a $541,184 grant to fund work "Toward Improved Projections of the Climate Response to Anthropogenic Forcing," which will contribute "to the understanding of abrupt climate change." That's on top of another $1.9 million grant for the investigation of "environmental temperature on the transmission of vector-borne diseases." Both grants say they were "funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009." I'm so glad that at least his job has been saved.
Read up on the Vikings. They did not call it Greenland because it was 80% covered in ice. Yet another person unwilling to admit the planet was warming in history than it is today. How about Shangri-La? Read up on that. The legend started in the 10th century that a beautiful place existed in the mountains of Tibet. The reality is that one of the ruling Buddhists families built a city, Shambhala, in the mountains of Tibet in the 8th century to escape the summer heat during the early part of what we know as the Medieval Warming Trend. Early western travelers hearing the legend of it pronounced it Shangri-La The place existed in an isolated valley that saw rain while a drought ravaged the lower altitudes and crops grew when many starved. Any place with that much food and water would be considered a paradise. The kingdom was populated by the Shang Shung dynasty until the 16th century when the Chinese killed the ruling family and the Little Ice Age made it too cold to grow enough food to support a large population. Many of the temples still exist today and are maintained by local villagers, although the interiors are in a bad state because the modern Chinese Army trashed the place during the Cultural Revolution in the 1960s. The Vikings and the Buddhists were not nuts. They moved to cooler climates, north to the ice free polar region for the Vikings and up into the mountains for the Shang Shung, to escape the global warming. Then they were either killed off or vacated those places during the Little Ice Age. Deny it all you want, but history knows the green vineyards of Greenland and the gardens of Shangri-La did exist in their day. Both of which were during Medieval Warming Trend. The proof is there for those who wish to look.
Hates Idiots, Hate your self much? What an idiotic statement to say that polar ice caps did not exist after AD 800. There is more than 3 kilometers of ice at places on Antarctica and I guarantee it didn't all build up in the past 1300 years. Greenland has never been less than about 80% ice covered in the past 1 million years. It may have been slightly less ice covered than it is now around 800 AD but it was not that dramatic a change. You really should study the science behind your statements because you're just repeating sound bites that make you one of the idiots you hate.
Isaiah 30:25-26 In the day of great slaughter, when the towers fall, streams of water will flow on every high mountain and every lofty hill. The moon will shine like the sun, and the sunlight will be seven times brighter, like the light of seven full days, when the LORD binds up the bruises of his people and heals the wounds he inflicted.
First, while temperate and tropical glaciers have been in noticeable retreat, nowhere in the Arctic is that the case. What is the case is that the EXTENT of SUMMER SEA ice and the THICKNESS of WINTER SEA ice has been reduced. Given those facts, we might just expect a MORE STABLE Arctic climate, for the following reasons: First, while it is true that ice has a higher specific heat than a typical rock(2.05J/gK for ice vs. 0.790J/gK for granite), ice has about half the thermal capacity of liquid water (4.1813J/gK). Even more important may be the ability to conduct heat between air and the surface, be that surface glacier, ice pack, or open sea, and clearly, open sea wins that contest hands-down. Not only do waves and spray increase the conduction, but water convects to transport heat rapidly to or from the surface. So, more open water means a more stable atmosphere. However, in the Arctic Winter, most of the sea is frozen over. But here is where ice is really doing its thing: When ice freezes it liberates 333.55J/g, as much heat as it would liberate in cooling from 0 deg C to -162 deg C. When it melts it takes the same amount of heat back. The melting and freezing of pack ice proceeds much more rapidly now than in the past because of the thinner pack ice and, in the summer, open seas, which provide less insulation to impede that process. Thus, the major stabilizer of the Arctic climate, the Arctic Sea, has become a more potent force for stabilizing the Arctic climate than it was before the climate warmed. Does that mean that "Global Warming" had nothing to do with the recent surges of cold air into the temperate zones of the Northern Hemisphere? No, not necessarily. I could postulate that that the contrast between the (stabilized, hence,) warmer Arctic Ocean temperatures and the cold-as-ever temperatures over, say, Greenland, which usually sports a high pressure zone, led to some instability that caused the break-outs. But I would just be pulling it out. The fact is, day-long simulations of this climate with the fastest available computers and the best available programs lead to unreliable results. Any pen-and-paper analysis should be done on soft tissue so that the final result might find some ultimate application.
@Hates Idiots In some ways "Global Warming" would be easier to cope with than "Global Cooling". Just look at the chaos in Europe and the US. That "heat well" effect wouldn't last very long, if the Sun was blocked out by clouds for weeks on end. lehnerus2000
Should we be concerned about the warming or cooling of the planet? Yes. With proper warning we can prepare for what we cannot stop Mother Nature from doing. Mankinds contribution to greenhouse gases is tiny under peer review. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
I will try to check that website out properly, but just scanning down it quickly it obviously looks quite convincing; however, I'm well aware that you can find websites which are quite convincing trying to prove any point - convincing in isolation, that is. Sadly, this whole debate and the fact that all the people posting on this article get so mad at each other is simply testament to the fact that, on the subject of what the climate is doing, or is going to do, or what's causing it, or what we could possibly do about it, nobody knows 100%. And even sadder for us, that even if anyone really did know none of us would find out to an incontrovertible extent by doing a few hours' Googling. Which brings us to the fact that a very large majority of the experts in this matter think that man-made global warming is a significant phenomenon and threatens dire consequences. The paradox is that while we should never accept a dogma passed-down by "those who know best", they still know best. What do the rest of us do with that, eh? And I have a lot of sympathy for those who think that global warming is a scare story, certainly there's a great tradition of spurious scare stories and this one bears most of the classic traits, not least the near-religious fervour and the vitriol towards those who dare to doubt. I would say, to you personally, that your early posts on this matter kept putting the point, fairly aggressively, that global warming "believers" deny the existence of warm periods in the past which could never have been caused by man. Which we don't. You make a much more reasonable point in your later points that natural factors may be so huge that we could end up with global warming - or cooling - no matter what we do. I wouldn't argue with that, although the figures suggest that man-made global warming is very big compared to natural factors, at least over the last 50 years, so we probably should do what we can. After all, we have to find a replacement for oil probably in the next century anyway. While I'm banging on, I'd just like to say: 1. To echo gwoods1974's early point, those of us who believe global warming is real would love to be wrong! 2. I seriously doubt the global warming theory is any sort of financially-motivated conspiracy because the money talks the other way; it would be much more profitable to cover-up a real environmental crisis than to act on it; big business hates all this eco-legislation - something so bad for business wouldn't be invented for money. Cheers all, - Steve.
lehnerus2000... Lets take the chance global warming happens and triggers global cooling. The chance of a sudden flood the size of what happened to New York in The Day After Tomorrow has been shown to be remote. But.. The cold and snow could come and maybe it comes as fast as in the movie. The big variables we have now compared to the last ice age are urban centers. Lets say the globae get snowed in like in The Day After Tomorrow. The skyscrapers will act as heat sinks and warm the urban areas melting the snow and ice. It would be like tree wells. The depressions you see that form around trees when deep snow melts close to the tree. The solar heat captured by the tree warms the trunk and surrounding ground and causes the hole. These holes form in even heavy snow areas meaning the melt is faster than the fall. Even in below 0 temps. These urban hot spots would have a disruptive effect on the formation of glaciers and the long-term effect of snow reflecting solar radiation. The net effect would be local warm spots and a potential of shortening the length of the ice age by 10 or maybe 20%. These manmade microclimate events have an impact on regional weather today. One example today of a manmade heat sink altering a microclimate is at Kilimanjaro. Temperatures on the mountain its self have not changed significantly in the past 50 years, but much of the area surrounding the mountain has been deforested. This has triggered local warming around the mountain, which has lowered the level of moisture in the air. This reduced amount of moisture has trigged a local microclimate change reducing winter rains in the region and snowfall on the mountain. The limited snowfall the mountain does get is not keeping up with the normal melting of the glacier. That is why the glacier is shrinking. Blaming global warming is letting the locals off the hook for destroying their regional microclimate through deforestation. Microclimate changes are why the west coast of Antarctica has been seeing huge melting of the ice pack yet the east coast is colder, wetter and the ice pack is growing. The net change on the overall South Pole ice pack has been growth over the last several years. Not shrinkage. Climates are much more complicated than the global warming people want the average person to believe.
Dana you are hopeless. By failing to look into the science behind the AD 800 warming, and why Greenland was green, you avoid the discussion that the same natural forces could be at work today.
The question is, what should we do to control the weather? Should we modify our behaviour (Anthropomorphic warming)? Should we build a giant space mirror/shade to control the amount of Solar radiation we receive (Solar warming)? Should we do nothing at all and just accept that, if the climate becomes unbearable, we'll die out like the dinosaurs? lehnerus2000
@adornoe I mentioned my location because that's the only area I have info on. Someone else mentioned that temperatures are dropping where they live. "But the facts say that the last 11 years have actually cooled and we're well on the way towards 12 year of cooling. " Whose facts? The "facts" in my country directly contradict your "facts". Part of the problem is that the results of research are based on who commissioned it. Research by Coal & Oil companies shows no "Global Warming", research by "Alternative energy companies shows "Global Warming". Both sides have vested interests in the outcome. The only way to get around this, is to have some sort of Worldwide, independent research body created to thoroughly examine the actual data. Half of the scientists would be picked by World Governments. The other half could be picked by businesses, who pay a tax to help fund the research. If a business pays enough tax to fund a scientist's wage, they could nominate a researcher for the project. Smaller businesses could form groups, so that their tax payments would be large enough, for them to nominate researchers. I guess that other groups could be formed and they could donate funds so that they could nominate researchers. All data & funding should be open to public scrutiny. I have stated on other posts that, anyone (media commentators, politicians, religious fanatics & scientists) who commits scientific fraud should be jailed! lehnerus2000
"elitist freedom-ophobes who don't trust the rest of us to make the right decisions on our own." This idea that there is some "conspiracy" among scientists, or that the warmth of Greenland in the year 1000 AD disproves global warming seeks to turn science into politics, which it isn't. If it were, objects of different weights dropped from a height would drop at different speeds, the Sun would go around the Earth, and Galileo would still be a crank. What makes the difference between science and political ideology is usefulness. So far, every prediction made by climate scientists 20 years ago has proven accurate. The idea that actions don't have consequences, that you can do what you want to this planet and everything will self- correct, is wishful thinking -- it's politics and not science. Politically we can build that bridge back to the 13th century if you want, but you're not going to like what happens when we get there. One hint for what you'll find there. Haiti. They didn't "believe" in the science of engineering buildings correctly. They built houses and palaces of unreinforced cement. It's too bad we can't run the experiment -- you run your part of the world politically and we'll run it scientifically. There's only one planet. And the water's getting higher.
steve_jonesuk@... Check out this site. http://www.isthereglobalcooling.com/ This site has information with dozens of links to government agencies like NASA, NOAA and their counterparts in other countries that have the supporting data. There are also links from other facts to universities across the planet that are studying global cooling. Looking at this site it seems obvious why a recent survey found less than 5,000 scientists who support the global warming argument, but over 30,000 scientists that support global cooling. A few hours searching online or in a good library will open your eyes.
With the lack of ethics, it can be hard to trust data. Accurate data can be twisted to wrong conclusions or mistaken as correlation is causation. If global warming is a slow and cumulative process, then confirming global warming before acting could be our last mistake for millions in coastal regions. Isn't the conservative approach to take steps to reduce greenhouse gases?
Swing and a miss? How? I don't think anyone is denying the existence of warmer periods in Earth's history which clearly had nothing to do with man. The statistics on such things aren't widely disputed, are they? You make a new point about what we could learn from focussing more on such figures but I think they've been thoroughly pored-over in formulating current climate thinking. They're kinda key to that. Do you have any links to people claiming the Earth's currently the hottest it's ever been? Or anything else to back-up your theory on "our ignorance"? Or have you simply observed that natural global warming occurs (which - ahem - IT DOES!) and handily surmised that manmade global warming must be nothing you should change your lifestyle for?
Cooling is global warming. Up is down. Down is up. WAR IS PEACE FREEDOM IS SLAVERY IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
steve_jonesuk@... You are still missing the point. By denying the Medieval Warming Trend from AD 800 to 1300 ever happened these so called scientists are missing the opportunity to identify a potential cause, or the multiple contributing factors, of natural global warming. By denying natural global warming occurs they refuse the opportunity to study the evidence from prior natural global warming events. They lose the opportunity to compare it against 20th century warming data and they walk away from the chance to look for more evidence on both cases to try and determine why such natural warming events happen. If the global warming of the 20th century was natural and it does precede another Little Ice Age, as the Medieval Warming Trend did, than knowing the natural causes of both may allow us to mitigate the damage, but I doubt we could stop the warming or the cooling if Mother Nature is behind it. When a volcano can change global weather for 3 years in a single day of erupting it looks to me like mankinds chances of doing anything measurable to stop natural global warming or natural global cooling are slim to none. To paraphrase Dennis Quaid in The Day After Tomorrow: The best we can do is get out of the way and focus on saving as many as we can.
If they do, then they are not scientists, but something else. A true scientist presents data the way he finds it, regardless if it supports his own private views or not. Like Richard Feynman did (RIP). Lets call these other people something else. Like sciencebluffs or something. Mr so-and-so is a sciencebluff, working for the globalwarmingparty or the iceagesects.
Can Dana Blankenhorn support us with a peer reviewed study on the ice fat theory and that the Earth is behavior is similar to human bodies? As an AGW denier I can support all my standpoints on peer reviewed climate science.
Kilimanjaro is colder than decades ago, when one started to measure the temperature there. The lack of precipitation is because man has cut down forests along the mountain slopes. If global warming wont "take off like a rocket", this is "your final warning". LOL. Skip this pro-large government global warming alarmism which you so obviously lie about, and support reason and freedom which is threatened by the progressive neo-marxist environment of today.
Kilimanjaro is colder than decades ago, when one started to measure the temperature there. The lack of precipitation is because man has cut down forests along the mountain slopes.
> When the data is manipulated and cherry-picked to arrive at desire results... the science is not just faulty but downright fraudulent. Again, one fraudulent action doesn't make the whole concept spurious. There's tons of data which hasn't been manipulated and which suggests global warming, why do you focus on the one example which backs up what you wish to believe? I guess it's just human nature. People want to believe man has no responsibility for any environmental catastrophe so they can continue living without the constraints we'd have to endure to avoid such a thing. But just because one group of scientists covered-up some figures which suggested gravity doesn't exist, doesn't mean it's safe to go jump off a cliff.
The first thing we need is some facts. Is the the Earth warming or cooling? Then we need to know why it is and only then can we take any action about it. If it is warming and it is caused by man we can decide when. what and how to change it. If it is caused by other causes, then we must adapt to those changes. We must take it out of the area of religion and place it back in science. Crying the sky is falling with no real evidence to back it is counter-productive and clouds the real problems. The same holds true if there is global cooling. It seems there are 2300 scientists claiming global warming and about 33,000 that say no. There is no consenses at this time, but the cooling faction has the larger numbers. Where I live the temperatures have been falling for the past ten years.
Not in my part of the World (South Australia). We just had the hottest year on record (yearly average temperature). We are told here, that the hottest 8 or 9 years on record, have occurred in the last decade. Nobody denies that "climate change" happens. In fact, I'm one of the biggest believers of climate change. It's been happening since the planet was "born" and will continue to happen until it dies. Regional temperatures is not what has been discussed when ti comes to "global warming". Notice that the key word is "global". What the global warmists have been arguing for the last 25 years is about "global" warming. They've talked about the last decade being the warmest in history. But the facts say that the last 11 years have actually cooled and we're well on the way towards 12 year of cooling. The argument is about which group is correct: the "global warming" proponents or the "deniers"? When the data is manipulated and cherry-picked to arrive at desire results, then you know for sure that the science is not just faulty but downright fraudulent. Faulty or fraudulent science is not science at all; at that point it becomes "science fiction".