Jump to content

Global warming stopped 16 years ago


Recommended Posts

Has anyone seen algore recently?

 

 

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html#ixzz29IUtJZkb

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Garbage. Released on the internet with little to no fanfare. And no scientific review process.

 

Not released in a peer-reviewed academic journal, where real, respected scientists in their field publish their findings. The 97% of American scientists that support global warming must be shaking in their boots. :hysterical2:

 

The public and those that oppose climate change will eat it up. To professional scientists and researchers....another day at the office.

 

And yes this is true.

 

So let’s be clear. Yes: global warming is real, and some of it at least has been caused by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels......it may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed

 

 

 

So, it may be happening more slowly. Well thank sweet chocolate Christ for that. How about a real study to support that?

 

 

 

 

Nothing to see here. :reading: You might as well be getting information from the Heartland Institute.

Edited by the_spaniard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL! You guys are hilarious. Again with the "sky is falling" routine? Is the earth warming? yes...the same as it did after the ice age and the mini ice age.

 

Of all the things to cling to as a culprit...CO2? REALLY? When over 75% of the earths cooling/heating is directly effected by water vapour? When CO2 is somewhere around 3% and mans portion of that is whatever percent (I forget now) of that 3%?

 

Puh-lease

 

The single stategy by the global warming crowd is "repeat something long enough and people will believe it". They will use any off the cuff reason to support their claim, such as gore's "it was the altitude". He's making his millions so he doesn't care at this point, but he must be laughing his ass off every time he buys more waterfront property or blames unrelated stuff on global warming and then see's his followers repeat it.

It snowed-global warming

It rained-global warming

Suzie fell off her bike-global warming

Satelite went out-global warming

anything-global warming

 

The sad part is, they have slowly dropped the "man made" part of the global warming crap so when the earth does get warmer (and it is because that is the cycle we're in) they can say global warming and everybody automatically thinks "man made" global warming.

Kind of like saying a vehicle for driving on snow is a ski-doo when actually it's a snowmobile. Or those things to protect cuts and bruises are band-aids..when they are actually bandages.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly, the sky didn't fall in the last 16 years; nor did the Earth warm (apparently, according to the data).

 

I'm not suggesting that the Earth isn't warming (on a long term basis or from natural causes), however at what point does real-world data trump predictions and computer models? (I freely admit I consider man's contribution to any global climate change minimal)

Edited by RangerM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good question Ranger. At what point do we say the models are bunk and let's go by real world data. The problem is, the real world data can be manipulated as well. They went back to 1940 and proved the earth was cooling....because of CO2 until 1975 when people finally called bullshit. Then, they went back to 1850 to start the time line, it was the end of the mini ice age so of course the world has been slowly warming. So real world data will only be as good as the people reporting it...kinda the same as the models will only be as good as the person inputting data.

 

The real problem is, there are too many variables (including those we are not even aware of yet) We are trying to diagnose a car by it's colour. We can't fathom the variables involved including all the parts on the car or how they're inter-related, and we don't even know yet that there are other types of cars!

We looked back 20 years and said all blue cars quit due to lack of gas. Then we went back 75 years and concluded they all quit because of flat tires. Anybody questioning ANY methodology is labelled and outcast.

 

Since they are telling and we are not asking, the burden of proof is on them.

If I come out tomorrow and say computors drive people to kill and we must get rid of all computors or take expensive "anti-killing courses" that only I provide, I have to prove it. People don't have to prove me wrong, I made the statement and am trying to change the acknowledged status quo, the onus is on me.

 

I am still waiting for the answer to my question of "what is the perfect temp the earth should be, 3 deg warmer as during the roman era, 2 degrees colder as per the mini ice age era, or now at this present temp"? The follow up question being "what made it change before the industrial revolution" (and before SUV's)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am still waiting for the answer to my question of "what is the perfect temp the earth should be, 3 deg warmer as during the roman era, 2 degrees colder as per the mini ice age era, or now at this present temp"?

 

This is the part of the argument I agree with. What happens if we can make the earth cooler? How cool should we make it? What is "ideal"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the part of the argument I agree with. What happens if we can make the earth cooler? How cool should we make it? What is "ideal"?

 

So if the icepacks continue to melt at their alarming rate, polar bears become only for zoos, and the world's oceans contiue to rise putting island nations and port cities at risk, we should do nothing and want to live like it's still 1950? You guys amaze me. Put your head in the sand and continue with your obsessive denial in the extreme. With that comes the increasing acidity rate of the oceans and resulting death of the oyster, food source for so many ceatures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the world's oceans contiue to rise putting island nations and port cities at risk

 

The projected rise in sea level over the next century is 1-2 feet. How is a 2 foot rise over 100 years going to put island nations and port cities at risk?

 

And even if it does, what evidence is there that we can do anything about it?

 

Most of North America used to be covered by glaciers. It all melted and without a SUV or coal burning power plant in sight. Look at the difference in temperature between Athens, GA (61.7) and Charlotte, NC (60.1) - 200 miles apart at roughly the same elevation. Or look at the difference in temperature between July and September. All of this is due to just a few degrees difference in the angle and distance of the sun.

 

It's like sitting in front of a roaring fireplace, lighting a match and saying that the match changed the temperature.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that there is no dry land at the North Pole-which is composed of ice floating on the ocean-you could melt all the ice at the North Pole and there would be no difference in ocean level, just as the level of water in a glass remains the same as the cubes melt.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The projected rise in sea level over the next century is 1-2 feet. How is a 2 foot rise over 100 years going to put island nations and port cities at risk?

 

And even if it does, what evidence is there that we can do anything about it?

 

Most of North America used to be covered by glaciers. It all melted and without a SUV or coal burning power plant in sight. Look at the difference in temperature between Athens, GA (61.7) and Charlotte, NC (60.1) - 200 miles apart at roughly the same elevation. Or look at the difference in temperature between July and September. All of this is due to just a few degrees difference in the angle and distance of the sun.

 

It's like sitting in front of a roaring fireplace, lighting a match and saying that the match changed the temperature.

 

Some island nations are already at risk. They don't have to wait 100 years. And Polar Bears are finding it much harder to jump from one ice flow to another since they are dropping in number yearly. And many port towns in Alaska and othe far nothern areas around globe are at risk because the seas just don't freeze up like they used to. For a know it all, your ignorance on many subjects is lacking. To say man and all his activiities on Earth have no affect is like saying a toxic site has no affect on the ground water near it. We have to be mindful of harmful affects that we do the Earth and help improve the situation if we can. Wanting to to back the 50's that I remember well with all the flaming rivers and smoggy sky is denial in the extreme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some island nations are already at risk. They don't have to wait 100 years. And Polar Bears are finding it much harder to jump from one ice flow to another since they are dropping in number yearly. And many port towns in Alaska and othe far nothern areas around globe are at risk because the seas just don't freeze up like they used to. For a know it all, your ignorance on many subjects is lacking.

 

 

None of that has anything to do with rising sea level which is what you said. Rising sea level is not endangering anyone anytime soon. And sea level won't rise unless we melt land based ice.

 

To say man and all his activiities on Earth have no affect is like saying a toxic site has no affect on the ground water near it. We have to be mindful of harmful affects that we do the Earth and help improve the situation if we can. Wanting to to back the 50's that I remember well with all the flaming rivers and smoggy sky is denial in the extreme.

 

I never said that. We need to conserve and we need to pollute less. But we don't need to spend billions of dollars on the chance that we might be able to have some small effect on something that might just as easily be due to the sun or some other natural occurrence that we have no control over.

 

Especially when you realize that a lot of the folks pushing this theory stand to profit from it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wanting to to back the 50's that I remember well with all the flaming rivers and smoggy sky is denial in the extreme.

 

First off the flaming rivers was a '60's thing. Second, no one is calling for this... Third, what if climate change, and there has never been any suggestion in the historical record of climate stability, is a natural occurrence? What then?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if the icepacks continue to melt at their alarming rate, polar bears become only for zoos, and the world's oceans contiue to rise putting island nations and port cities at risk, we should do nothing and want to live like it's still 1950? You guys amaze me. Put your head in the sand and continue with your obsessive denial in the extreme. With that comes the increasing acidity rate of the oceans and resulting death of the oyster, food source for so many ceatures.

 

That didn't answer the question and I didn't deny that temperatures are rising. That's not where my fault is in the argument. What is the ideal global temperature we should all be aiming for?

Edited by NickF1011
Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of that has anything to do with rising sea level which is what you said. Rising sea level is not endangering anyone anytime soon. And sea level won't rise unless we melt land based ice.

 

 

 

I never said that. We need to conserve and we need to pollute less. But we don't need to spend billions of dollars on the chance that we might be able to have some small effect on something that might just as easily be due to the sun or some other natural occurrence that we have no control over.

 

Especially when you realize that a lot of the folks pushing this theory stand to profit from it.

 

AGAIN, rising sea levels are already endangering some island nations. Since they are third world or not even that, we seem to forget them. And we won't even get into what the old freon A/C did to the ozone layer before CFC showed up. Third world nations are suffering mightily already from global warming, and of course it shows up most significantly at the two poles which is only preview of what will happen later to us or should I say future generations. Repubs keep telling us how present day deficits will affect their grandchildren, but fail to tell them how what we are doing to the Earth will affect their lives in much greater fashion. We are already drowning in our own garbage as land fills become scarcer and NIMBY rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AGAIN, rising sea levels are already endangering some island nations. Since they are third world or not even that, we seem to forget them. And we won't even get into what the old freon A/C did to the ozone layer before CFC showed up. Third world nations are suffering mightily already from global warming, and of course it shows up most significantly at the two poles which is only preview of what will happen later to us or should I say future generations. Repubs keep telling us how present day deficits will affect their grandchildren, but fail to tell them how what we are doing to the Earth will affect their lives in much greater fashion. We are already drowning in our own garbage as land fills become scarcer and NIMBY rules.

 

You should probably power down your computer and sell your cars then. Stop contributing to the warming of Metro Detroit.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AGAIN, rising sea levels are already endangering some island nations. Since they are third world or not even that, we seem to forget them. And we won't even get into what the old freon A/C did to the ozone layer before CFC showed up. Third world nations are suffering mightily already from global warming, and of course it shows up most significantly at the two poles which is only preview of what will happen later to us or should I say future generations. Repubs keep telling us how present day deficits will affect their grandchildren, but fail to tell them how what we are doing to the Earth will affect their lives in much greater fashion. We are already drowning in our own garbage as land fills become scarcer and NIMBY rules.

 

2-1-5-level.gif

 

What caused sea level to rise at the same rate between 1870 and 1950? And how is a 4 inch rise in sea level over the last 60 years endangering island nations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AGAIN, rising sea levels are already endangering some island nations. Since they are third world or not even that, we seem to forget them. And we won't even get into what the old freon A/C did to the ozone layer before CFC showed up. Third world nations are suffering mightily already from global warming, and of course it shows up most significantly at the two poles which is only preview of what will happen later to us or should I say future generations. Repubs keep telling us how present day deficits will affect their grandchildren, but fail to tell them how what we are doing to the Earth will affect their lives in much greater fashion. We are already drowning in our own garbage as land fills become scarcer and NIMBY rules.

The sky is falling...the sky is falling!......I live near the coast and there are miles of tidal rivers in the area.....and guess what.....the oysters are back and thriving in spite of the supposed climate change......it's because the rivers are being cleaned up from pollutants like creosote and kepone......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

That didn't answer the question and I didn't deny that temperatures are rising. That's not where my fault is in the argument. What is the ideal global temperature we should all be aiming for?

 

There is no "ideal" temperature. In fact, I believe we might do MORE harm by trying to correct the Earth's temp than if we just let it correct itself. The Earth is an extremely complex system. We don't fully understand all the variables affecting it which s exactly why we shouldn't go off half-cocked and start f-Ing with it to "fix" it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no "ideal" temperature. In fact, I believe we might do MORE harm by trying to correct the Earth's temp than if we just let it correct itself. The Earth is an extremely complex system. We don't fully understand all the variables affecting it which s exactly why we shouldn't go off half-cocked and start f-Ing with it to "fix" it.

 

A reduction of greenhouse gases is not an attempt to fix the earth, it is an attempt to stop having a negative impact on it. We should reduce our negative impacts on everything in life, such as pesticides, over fertilizing, relying on non-renewable carbon based energy. (Take a look at what Mountain top mining does to the land)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

A reduction of greenhouse gases is not an attempt to fix the earth, it is an attempt to stop having a negative impact on it. We should reduce our negative impacts on everything in life, such as pesticides, over fertilizing, relying on non-renewable carbon based energy. (Take a look at what Mountain top mining does to the land)

 

I don't disagree with that. Conservation and emissions reductions are a good thing. I get my electricity from a company that uses wind generated power exclusively.

 

What I'm addressing are some of the outrageously wild (and potentially very expensive) schemes coming out of the scientific community. For instance, wrapping icebergs in giant foil blankets to save them. They're melting because the earth is adjusting its temperature. We don't need to mess with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A reduction of greenhouse gases is not an attempt to fix the earth, it is an attempt to stop having a negative impact on it. We should reduce our negative impacts on everything in life, such as pesticides, over fertilizing, relying on non-renewable carbon based energy. (Take a look at what Mountain top mining does to the land)

 

Those are fine and admirable goals and it is something we should strive for long-term, but the question then becomes how do we get there? You don't do it by crushing the economy through some dim-witted, short-sighted "cap-and-trade" scheme that does nothing but make a select few richer while really making little global impact at all. In the meantime, the earth isn't going to melt in the next 5 years because we didn't do something drastic today.

Edited by NickF1011
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those are fine and admirable goals and it is something we should strive for long-term, but the question then becomes how do we get there? You don't do it by crushing the economy through some dim-witted, short-sighted "cap-and-trade" scheme that does nothing but make a select few richer while really making little global impact at all. In the meantime, the earth isn't going to melt in the next 5 years because we didn't do something drastic today.

 

But what about those island nations that are going to be flooded by a 4 inch rise in sea level?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...