1. PF has switched to Xenforo. Please see this post for more details. Search and other functions are still being worked on.
    Dismiss Notice

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by ptif219, Jan 29, 2012.

  1. ptif219

    ptif219 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    9,275
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It appears NASA says no warming for last 15 years and we are headed for a mini ice age. This tells me skeptics were right all along man is not affecting climate change


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...A-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html


     
  2. Colonel K

    Colonel K Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    9,335
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Your post tells me that you would grasp at the thinnest of straws if it supported your faith-based ideas. If the Daily Wail can't even get the source of their sensationalised garbage right, what chance the story itself?

    NASA isn't the same as "the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit." The first is the British Weather centre, and the second is a British University department. Neither is North American.
     
  3. ptif219

    ptif219 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    9,275
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You show you did not read the article. NASA says we are headed to cycle 25 which will be low solar activity .

    The Met Office and East Anglia show we have not been warming.

    It shows that some the biggest global warming organizations are proving we are not warming and we are looking at a cooling cycle in the near future.
     
  4. Taxcutter

    Taxcutter New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    20,847
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Consensus?

    Settled science?

    Doesn't sound like it.
     
  5. FearandLoathing

    FearandLoathing Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    4,416
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your post tells ME that the typical eco-weenie would cling with exaggerated desperation to the past like a Luddite working in a buggy whip factory.

    The claim that man made global warming was "settled" has ignored alternative data for 15 years.

    And when so called "scientists" heatedly and angrily shout down even the merest question of data with spittle flinging from their lips it is sufficient evidence of at least pig headed closed mindedness if not political ideology masquerading as "science."

    More than 25 million people make their living as a result of the global warming hoax....they all have their own manner of living to protect over and above science.

    The facts are there....and they are NASA's data....like Ripley said: "Believe it, or not."
     
  6. FearandLoathing

    FearandLoathing Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    4,416
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    113


    This is what has bothered me about global warming "science" from the beginning. The very concept of science is that it is never "Settled" and there should never be "consensus."

    You don't need to look very far nor very far in the past find our "science" was wrong. Remember thalidamyde? It was supposed to be safe. We got thousands of babies born with fins.

    Just a few years ago they were treating psoriasis with heavy doses of UV light, slightly burning the skin. Ten years and, wow, they discovered what most psoriasis sufferers already knew...that too much light made it worse.

    In biology and farming, almost everything we thought we knew and changed to in the 1970's and 80's we now find out was wrong.

    Science is never "settled"...only those who have something to gain will tell you science is settled.
     
  7. ptif219

    ptif219 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    9,275
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Notice this not from skeptics but from organizations that claimed global warming.
     
  8. The Lepper

    The Lepper New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2011
    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Could you link to where NASA says that? I don't trust info like that from dailymail and similar sites.

    Peer-reviewed literature tells us a different story....

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL048794.shtml - Church et al. (2011)

    "We review the sea-level and energy budgets together from 1961, using recent and updated estimates of all terms. From 1972 to 2008, the observed sea-level rise (1.8 ± 0.2 mm yr−1 from tide gauges alone and 2.1 ± 0.2 mm yr−1 from a combination of tide gauges and altimeter observations) agrees well with the sum of contributions (1.8 ± 0.4 mm yr−1) in magnitude and with both having similar increases in the rate of rise during the period. The largest contributions come from ocean thermal expansion (0.8 mm yr−1) and the melting of glaciers and ice caps (0.7 mm yr−1), with Greenland and Antarctica contributing about 0.4 mm yr−1. The cryospheric contributions increase through the period (particularly in the 1990s) but the thermosteric contribution increases less rapidly. We include an improved estimate of aquifer depletion (0.3 mm yr−1), partially offsetting the retention of water in dams and giving a total terrestrial storage contribution of −0.1 mm yr−1. Ocean warming (90% of the total of the Earth's energy increase) continues through to the end of the record, in agreement with continued greenhouse gas forcing. The aerosol forcing, inferred as a residual in the atmospheric energy balance, is estimated as −0.8 ± 0.4 W m−2 for the 1980s and early 1990s. It increases in the late 1990s, as is required for consistency with little surface warming over the last decade. This increase is likely at least partially related to substantial increases in aerosol emissions from developing nations and moderate volcanic activity. "

    Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) - http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022

    "We analyze five prominent time series of global temperature (over land and ocean) for their common time interval since 1979: three surface temperature records (from NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC and HadCRU) and two lower-troposphere (LT) temperature records based on satellite microwave sensors (from RSS and UAH). All five series show consistent global warming trends ranging from 0.014 to 0.018 K yr−1. When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced. Lower-troposphere temperature responds more strongly to El Niño/southern oscillation and to volcanic forcing than surface temperature data. The adjusted data show warming at very similar rates to the unadjusted data, with smaller probable errors, and the warming rate is steady over the whole time interval. In all adjusted series, the two hottest years are 2009 and 2010."
     
  9. ptif219

    ptif219 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    9,275
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0

    If you think it is wrong prove it. I am not your researcher
     
  10. The Lepper

    The Lepper New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2011
    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's not that I think it's wrong, I just want to see the source of this info to clarify that they are discussing surface temp and are not including heat absorbed by the ocean.

    ...And I did just give you a link that shows the oceans have still been warming regardless of surface temp. So to say 'no warming' full stop wouldn't be totally accurate.
     
  11. ptif219

    ptif219 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    9,275
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You want to attack the source but will not prove the facts wrong.

    Funny how your source differs others that I have seen

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/41840

    http://articles.businessinsider.com..._global-warming-anthropogenic-kevin-trenberth
     
  12. The Lepper

    The Lepper New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2011
    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Did you even read my post? If you are already getting lost in this convo I won't bother taking it further.

    "It's not that I think it's wrong, I just want to see the source of this info to clarify that they are discussing surface temp and are not including heat absorbed by the ocean."

    What source? You haven't provided one yet.

    You keep reading blogs and political websites as your 'sources' btw, I'll stick to actual science.
     
  13. ptif219

    ptif219 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    9,275
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have shown more than one place where scientists prove warming has stopped. We are talking air temp not the ocean. you have to go to a completely different area to side step what I show.
     
  14. The Lepper

    The Lepper New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2011
    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If we are talking global warming then we are also talking about ocean temp. Ok sure, surface temp hasn't increased, but this lull has been explained in peer review more than once and the oceans have been shown to still be absorbing heat.
     
  15. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    82
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No you haven't. You've just pretended you have. That's an entirely different thing. Quoting a vile crybaby serial liar like Delingpole only shows you like to quote liars.

    As another example, you say "It appears NASA says no warming for last 15 years and we are headed for a mini ice age." Funny thing is, NASA never said anything like that. So why did you claim they did?

    To get the kooks back on topic, let's summarize the issue.

    During the end years of solar cycle 23, when solar output was at extremely low levels, average temperatures were _increasing._

    How do denialists reconcile that simple fact with their nutty theory that everything is due to the sun?
     
  16. gmb92

    gmb92 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,799
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    David Rose of the DailyMail is lying again.


    http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/

    Rose has a history.

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/rosegate_1/
     
  17. ptif219

    ptif219 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    9,275
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The ocean temp is not the global temp that Global warming people claim is rising. This is a rabbit trail because you have nothing to refute the Op
     
  18. ptif219

    ptif219 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    9,275
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Your lies about what was said show you did not read the article
     
  19. ptif219

    ptif219 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    9,275
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
  20. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    82
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So, is there anything you don't see as proof of the global conspiracy?

    If you're not getting it, my point is that you illustrate how denialists are kind of crazy.

    And again, when will you show us where NASA says we're heading for an ice age? Given you stated "It appears NASA says no warming for last 15 years and we are headed for a mini ice age", you'd think you could show us where NASA said these things. If you don't, it would look like you'd been caught just mindlessly parroting what you were told to parrot.
     

Share This Page