Global temperatures drop sharply, what will the global warming alarmist say?

[SimplyImpossible]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

It stopped warming in 1998? Ten years ago? Someone alert the news media! This is truly a great discovery!







Yup. No warming there.

I see that you have not noticed that the end of the your charts show a cooling. Once again you have given us the information to show that you are wrong. Yes the global temps are up but that does not mean man has caused it. It does not even mean that man has contributed in any amount. As co2 increases it causes a cooling effect as it blocks out the heat coming into the planet. Do they not mention that on your sites you get data from? Wait they do that is were I got it from.

Dave

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by SimplyImpossible

I see that you have not noticed that the end of the your charts show a cooling. Once again you have given us the information to show that you are wrong. Yes the global temps are up but that does not mean man has caused it. It does not even mean that man has contributed in any amount. As co2 increases it causes a cooling effect as it blocks out the heat coming into the planet. Do they not mention that on your sites you get data from? Wait they do that is were I got it from.

Dave

I guess you havn't noticed that the entire graph goes up and down, spikes and drops.... the overall trend is what is important, not the momentary anomolies. The trend is still OBVIOUSLY upwards.

C02 has a cooling effect? That's factually wrong. The Grass is purple and the sky is green. I can make up stuff too. CO2 causes global cooling, quick, get in the hummer!

What a joke.

[Oisin]

Originally Posted by Ian W

Well actually - the Globe is NOT warming up that stopped circa 1998 since then despite continuing rises in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 - the atmosphere has stayed about the same temperature and over the last year has had its largest drop in temperature in one year ever recorded. So what people are arguing about is the validity of the models of global warming that are leading to carbon taxes and diatribes against airline travel.
Facts currently do not support what the models say. Thus instead of the proponents of 'Global warming' talking of man made Global Warming, they are talking of man made climate change. This is not scientific this is weasel worded political argument.

It seems that u r right.
U.N. Scientist Rejects Nobel Prize Share, Denounces Climate Alarmism
U.N. Scientist Rejects Nobel Prize Share, Denounces Climate Alarmism - Political Forum - US & World Political Discussion Forums

[Oisin]

Originally Posted by Ian W

Well actually - the Globe is NOT warming up that stopped circa 1998 since then despite continuing rises in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 - the atmosphere has stayed about the same temperature and over the last year has had its largest drop in temperature in one year ever recorded. So what people are arguing about is the validity of the models of global warming that are leading to carbon taxes and diatribes against airline travel.
Facts currently do not support what the models say. Thus instead of the proponents of 'Global warming' talking of man made Global Warming, they are talking of man made climate change. This is not scientific this is weasel worded political argument.

It seems that u r right, please be known:
U.N. Scientist Rejects Nobel Prize Share, Denounces Climate Alarmism
Has the global warming alarmism movement hit its apex? Maybe so.
In recent weeks, we've seen a resurgence of hard scientists who have come out strongly against the warm-mongers, the latest of which is Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change member John R. Christy. In an op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal, Christy tells the world that not only does he believe it's unproven that humans cause global warming, he's refusing his "share" of the Nobel Peace Prize that he was awarded because it was based on a misunderstanding of science.
An excerpt from this must-read op-ed:

I've had a lot of fun recently with my tiny (and unofficial) slice of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But, though I was one of thousands of IPCC participants, I don't think I will add "0.0001 Nobel Laureate" to my resume.
The other half of the prize was awarded to former Vice President Al Gore, whose carbon footprint would stomp my neighborhood flat. But that's another story. Large icebergs in the Weddell Sea, Antarctica. Winter sea ice around the continent set a record maximum last month.
Both halves of the award honor promoting the message that Earth's temperature is rising due to human-based emissions of greenhouse gases. The Nobel committee praises Mr. Gore and the IPCC for alerting us to a potential catastrophe and for spurring us to a carbonless economy.
I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time.
There are some of us who remain so humbled by the task of measuring and understanding the extraordinarily complex climate system that we are skeptical of our ability to know what it is doing and why. As we build climate data sets from scratch and look into the guts of the climate system, however, we don't find the alarmist theory matching observations. (The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellite data we analyze at the University of Alabama in Huntsville does show modest warming -- around 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit per century, if current warming trends of 0.25 degrees per decade continue.)
It is my turn to cringe when I hear overstated-confidence from those who describe the projected evolution of global weather patterns over the next 100 years, especially when I consider how difficult it is to accurately predict that system's behavior over the next five days.
Mother Nature simply operates at a level of complexity that is, at this point, beyond the mastery of mere mortals (such as scientists) and the tools available to us. As my high-school physics teacher admonished us in those we-shall-conquer-the-world-with-a-slide-rule days, "Begin all of your scientific pronouncements with 'At our present level of ignorance, we think we know . . .'"
I haven't seen that type of climate humility lately. Rather I see jump-to-conclusions advocates and, unfortunately, some scientists who see in every weather anomaly the specter of a global-warming apocalypse. Explaining each successive phenomenon as a result of human action gives them comfort and an easy answer.
Others of us scratch our heads and try to understand the real causes behind what we see. We discount the possibility that everything is caused by human actions, because everything we've seen the climate do has happened before. Sea levels rise and fall continually. The Arctic ice cap has shrunk before. One millennium there are hippos swimming in the Thames, and a geological blink later there is an ice bridge linking Asia and North America.
One of the challenges in studying global climate is keeping a global perspective, especially when much of the research focuses on data gathered from spots around the globe. Often observations from one region get more attention than equally valid data from another.

[SimplyImpossible]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I guess you havn't noticed that the entire graph goes up and down, spikes and drops.... the overall trend is what is important, not the momentary anomolies. The trend is still OBVIOUSLY upwards.

C02 has a cooling effect? That's factually wrong. The Grass is purple and the sky is green. I can make up stuff too. CO2 causes global cooling, quick, get in the hummer!

What a joke.

Please do a little research on what gasses do. It may be a little bit of a strech to believe but if the little spike keeps going down for another 10 years what would that be called.

The fact that C02 levels go up AFTER a warming period seems to be lost on people. After the C02 levels go up the planet starts to cool. The planet does not warm up because of the C02. now here is a link you should like. It is not political in its stance and only uses facts to give information. You will note on the link that I have provided that C02 is not linked to warming. That is the most critical part of our discussion. Is man made C02 responsible for global warming. This shows that it is not.



Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming -- Stott et al. 318 (5849): 435 -- Science

[AMTR]

Originally Posted by SimplyImpossible

You know I read every word on the NOAA link you sent and they claim that they can not tell for sure if man is having an effect. Do you not believe in your own information? maybe you should find some links that back up what you are defending. I would like you to give me one and only one credible link that I can not refute. I usually just take your link read it then research the author of the report. I then look at the data and see if it matches the what others have found. So far there has been no credible link to man made warming. I will repeat myself that there was no man around during the ice ages and the temps rose. Why is this? Maybe the earth cools and heats on a regular basis? Well that is what I think I will stick with until proven otherwise.

Dave

The problem is that Global Warming Theory is being used to pass all kind of laws to govern our behavior - to control how we live. The use of an EMERGENCY is a tool used by liberals to take control our lives and financial resources. The theory of Global Warming has to be discredited along with the reputaions of those pushing this madness less we lose what little freedoms we have in this nation. Global Warming is a power game - nothing less. The problem is that if a "cool down" of global temerature is in the cards, a lot of people are going to die. I just donated money to a Chinese relief effort to help millions of Chinese impacted by the drop in temperature, snow, crushed buildings and loss crops.

================================================== ======
The people behind this new Emergency are the same types that declared "forever housing emergencies" in cities around the nation Cities with Rent Control. {New York has had a rent control emergency since 1946, over 62 years. By declaring an housing a city can for al intents and purposes carry out a taking of private property. Only by declaring an Emergency can a city take property. Much of the gutting of New York in the 60's and 70's was a direct result of "rent control".

Many, many proponents of Global Warming are clustered in Rent Control Cities. There can be many reasons for this. One, I suspect, is that not having to pay market rates for the apartments they live in the tennant develops a "Peter Pan" like mentallity, since they don't have to same financial worries as the rest of us paying market rates.

It would be intersting to do an actual statisitcal study of how many Global Warming activisists live in Rent Control apartments and in rent control cities.
Perhaps a grant proposal would secure the funding to find out if there is a very high correlation. If there was and it is higher than the rate of deaths from not wearing seat belts, eating transats or smoking then these people could be declared a "national health risk" and dealt with appropriately.
================================================== ======

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by SimplyImpossible

Please do a little research on what gasses do. It may be a little bit of a strech to believe but if the little spike keeps going down for another 10 years what would that be called.

The fact that C02 levels go up AFTER a warming period seems to be lost on people. After the C02 levels go up the planet starts to cool. The planet does not warm up because of the C02. now here is a link you should like. It is not political in its stance and only uses facts to give information. You will note on the link that I have provided that C02 is not linked to warming. That is the most critical part of our discussion. Is man made C02 responsible for global warming. This shows that it is not.



Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming -- Stott et al. 318 (5849): 435 -- Science

That's a pretty big IF. You're basing your arguement on an unlikely future trend with no data to support why you think it will continue. Nice.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by AMTR

The problem is that Global Warming Theory is being used to pass all kind of laws to govern our behavior - to control how we live. The use of an EMERGENCY is a tool used by liberals to take control our lives and financial resources. The theory of Global Warming has to be discredited along with the reputaions of those pushing this madness less we lose what little freedoms we have in this nation. Global Warming is a power game - nothing less. The problem is that if a "cool down" of global temerature is in the cards, a lot of people are going to die. I just donated money to a Chinese relief effort to help millions of Chinese impacted by the drop in temperature, snow, crushed buildings and loss crops.

================================================== ======
The people behind this new Emergency are the same types that declared "forever housing emergencies" in cities around the nation Cities with Rent Control. {New York has had a rent control emergency since 1946, over 62 years. By declaring an housing a city can for al intents and purposes carry out a taking of private property. Only by declaring an Emergency can a city take property. Much of the gutting of New York in the 60's and 70's was a direct result of "rent control".

Many, many proponents of Global Warming are clustered in Rent Control Cities. There can be many reasons for this. One, I suspect, is that not having to pay market rates for the apartments they live in the tennant develops a "Peter Pan" like mentallity, since they don't have to same financial worries as the rest of us paying market rates.

It would be intersting to do an actual statisitcal study of how many Global Warming activisists live in Rent Control apartments and in rent control cities.
Perhaps a grant proposal would secure the funding to find out if there is a very high correlation. If there was and it is higher than the rate of deaths from not wearing seat belts, eating transats or smoking then these people could be declared a "national health risk" and dealt with appropriately.
================================================== ======

Holy tin-foil hat! Global warming is a rent control conspiracy? I think I may have heard everything now.


And this line...

The use of an EMERGENCY is a tool used by liberals to take control our lives and financial resources.

is total bullshit. Emergencies are used by anyone in power to control the masses. Trying to pin this behavior on "liberals" is ignorant. Look at the past 7 years.

[Roonie]

Originally Posted by Oisin

It seems that u r right.
U.N. Scientist Rejects Nobel Prize Share, Denounces Climate Alarmism
U.N. Scientist Rejects Nobel Prize Share, Denounces Climate Alarmism - Political Forum - US & World Political Discussion Forums

You are seriously going to use an Op-ed piece from a source as Newsbusters.org as fact?? what a joke.

[Roonie]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Holy tin-foil hat! Global warming is a rent control conspiracy? I think I may have heard everything now.


And this line...is total bullshit. Emergencies are used by anyone in power to control the masses. Trying to pin this behavior on "liberals" is ignorant. Look at the past 7 years.

Totally agree what a joke.

[Roonie]

Originally Posted by AMTR

The use of an EMERGENCY is a tool used by liberals to take control our lives and financial resources. The theory of Global Warming has to be discredited along with the reputaions of those pushing this madness less we lose what little freedoms we have in this nation. Global Warming is a power game - nothing less.

Some quotes taken directly from the White House from the desk of President Bush.

The issue of climate change respects no border. Its effects cannot be reined in by an army nor advanced by any ideology. Climate change, with its potential to impact every corner of the world, is an issue that must be addressed by the world.
My Cabinet-level working group has met regularly for the last 10 weeks to review the most recent, most accurate, and most comprehensive science. They have heard from scientists offering a wide spectrum of views. They have reviewed the facts, and they have listened to many theories and suppositions. The working group asked the highly-respected National Academy of Sciences to provide us the most up-to-date information about what is known and about what is not known on the science of climate change.
First, we know the surface temperature of the earth is warming. It has risen by .6 degrees Celsius over the past 100 years. There was a warming trend from the 1890s to the 1940s. Cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s. And then sharply rising temperatures from the 1970s to today.
There is a natural greenhouse effect that contributes to warming. Greenhouse gases trap heat, and thus warm the earth because they prevent a significant proportion of infrared radiation from escaping into space. Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in large part to human activity.

President Bush Discusses Global Climate Change

"I have said consistently that global warming is a serious problem. There's a debate over whether it's manmade or naturally caused," Bush told reporters.
"We ought to get beyond that debate and start implementing the technologies necessary to enable us to achieve a couple of big objectives: One, be good stewards of the environment; two, become less dependent on foreign sources of oil, for economic reasons as for national security reasons," he said.
Bush cited "clean-coal technology," efforts to develop automobiles powered by hydrogen or ethanol, and his push for the United States to develop significant new nuclear energy capabilities. "The truth of the matter is, if this country wants to get rid of its greenhouse gases, we've got to have the nuclear power industry be vibrant and viable," he said.

[Ian W]

Some science for you to read. This is what is meant by dispassionate and disinterested. I will quote the summary the paper from the International Journal of Climatology is fully peer reviewed.

The last part of the summary:

The last 25 years constitute a period of more complete and accurate observations and more realistic modelling efforts. Yet the models are seen to disagree with the observations. We suggest, therefore, that projections of future climate based on these models be viewed with much caution.

The reference is icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf

To put it in the language I would use - models using CO2 as the driver for global warming do not match reality. Therefore, it is unsafe to use them as tools to forecast future climate.

The sub-plot to this of course is that something else is the driver for climate change. While politicians are attempting to 'save the world' by taxing carbon footprints etc. There is actually something else changing the climate that *perhaps* we and they should be worrying about.

[kombayn]

Originally Posted by Roonie

Some quotes taken directly from the White House from the desk of President Bush.




President Bush Discusses Global Climate Change

The last person's opinion I want to read about, especially Global Warming is George W. Bush.

Also, it was another cool-sunny day in Southern California. The only thing I would watch out for is the O-zone layer, that's more important that anything. We can survive hot weather, but if the o-zone layer is gone, our skin will be burned by U.V. rays.

I'm not against cleaning up our planet but I'm against using this word "Global Warming" to scare the masses, especially when they blame Hurricane Katrina on Global Warming. Politicians need to be held accountable for fear-mongering. It's the worst and most dishonest way of doing politics.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by kombayn

The last person's opinion I want to read about, especially Global Warming is George W. Bush.

Also, it was another cool-sunny day in Southern California. The only thing I would watch out for is the O-zone layer, that's more important that anything. We can survive hot weather, but if the o-zone layer is gone, our skin will be burned by U.V. rays.

I'm not against cleaning up our planet but I'm against using this word "Global Warming" to scare the masses, especially when they blame Hurricane Katrina on Global Warming. Politicians need to be held accountable for fear-mongering. It's the worst and most dishonest way of doing politics.

When people talk about the weather and use it as anecdotal evidance that global warming isn't happening it makes me want to throw up in my mouth.

[Roonie]

Originally Posted by kombayn

The last person's opinion I want to read about, especially Global Warming is George W. Bush.

The point of my post was to show that the discussion of Global Warming is not just a liberal thing. Both sides are involved in different degrees. Bush is actively pursuing it.

[Ian W]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

It stopped warming in 1998? Ten years ago? Someone alert the news media! This is truly a great discovery!


Yup. No warming there.

Lou,
An interesting article for you to read - as you have time I will let you look up the references Climate facts to warm to | The Australian

[Ian W]

Originally Posted by Roonie

The point of my post was to show that the discussion of Global Warming is not just a liberal thing. Both sides are involved in different de