Uhh Global Cooling

[RunForTheRoses]

This is from left wing The Nation:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Cold-sun-rising-30272650.html

[sammy the sage]

the EARTH is going to go into ANOTHER ice age...

the EARTH is going to WARM up intolerably...

actually it's going TO DO BOTH...mankind BE damned...but THE cockroaches will STILL BE here....

now if I mention popcorn...my post is 50/50 to be deleted...although other's including mods are allowed to post popcorn...

Everything I've posted here in THIS thread is 100% accurate...that is IF you GET to read it...

[davew]

an interesting talk on youtube ->

Human Caused Global Warming: The Biggest Deception in History

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8

[incoming]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4

George Carlin's view on global warming....very funny.

[Tall One]

were all gonna die guys

[redshift1]

This is from left wing The Nation:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Cold-sun-rising-30272650.html

The Nation a magazine:
http://www.thenation.com


The Nation a newspaper published in Thailand:
http://www.nationmultimedia.com


Written by Sam Khourly who seems almost invisible on the internet except to
channel Valentina Zharkova the Mathematician.

.

[Tom]

actually it's going TO DO BOTH...mankind BE damned...but THE cockroaches will STILL BE here....

THIS is why we need term limits! :eek:

[TJDave]

THIS is why we need term limits! :eek:

Already have them. Built in to the Constitution.

[RunForTheRoses]

The Nation a magazine:
http://www.thenation.com


The Nation a newspaper published in Thailand:
http://www.nationmultimedia.com


Written by Sam Khourly who seems almost invisible on the internet except to
channel Valentina Zharkova the Mathematician.

.

Thank you I stand corrected. Makes sense the mag wouldn't go against the anti-capitalist solutions to global warming.

[boxcar]

an interesting talk on youtube ->

Human Caused Global Warming: The Biggest Deception in History

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8

It all about the government creating a false guilt trip on the masses. Guilty people are very easy to manipulate -- especially when it comes to manipulating them out of their money. Who in the world would not want to mitigate their guilt in exchange for the privilege of paying more taxes to the bankrupt governments around the world?

[Actor]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4

George Carlin's view on global warming....very funny.
Eugenie Scott's view ... dead serious.
eVYqUC_mcgE

[Tom]

Never heard of him.
Is he an alarmist?

[Hoofless_Wonder]

This is from left wing The Nation:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Cold-sun-rising-30272650.html

This article employs "selective science". The author believes the model indicating an approaching solar minimum to be "near perfect", and the resulting climate to be good for crafting a Stradivarius violin.

Ironically, the author than chooses to ignore the models (and data) indicating global warming, and the "climate forcing" views of those who prescribe to CO2 being a major culprit, as well as assuming data manipulations must only be one-sided.

So, science is okay when backing up my initial viewpoint, and it's bunk when it doesn't.... :rolleyes:

[tucker6]

This article employs "selective science". The author believes the model indicating an approaching solar minimum to be "near perfect", and the resulting climate to be good for crafting a Stradivarius violin.

Ironically, the author than chooses to ignore the models (and data) indicating global warming, and the "climate forcing" views of those who prescribe to CO2 being a major culprit, as well as assuming data manipulations must only be one-sided.

So, science is okay when backing up my initial viewpoint, and it's bunk when it doesn't.... :rolleyes:
On the contrary, I do not believe we are heading toward global cooling due to any upcoming low solar cycles. I think the sun does have some modulating effect on our climate, but what that effect may be is unknown at this time. More research needs to be done here. Same with the warmist side.

[hcap]

Another lame attempt to re write science by the woefully amateur climatologists here. Unlikely the sun will change things either way anytime soon.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions

In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.

Climate Myth...

It's the sun
"Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer. The data suggests solar activity is influencing the global climate causing the world to get warmer." (BBC)

Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. However global temperatures have been increasing. Since the sun and climate are going in opposite directions scientists conclude the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming.

The only way to blame the sun for the current rise in temperatures is by cherry picking the data. This is done by showing only past periods when sun and climate move together and ignoring the last few decades when the two are moving in opposite directions.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Solar_vs_temp_500.jpg

/H5kejSYPD7U
.................................................. .....................

Also if you gents do not like Skeptical Science, here is that elitist rag Scientific American trying to re-distribute all you loonies out of your hard earned capitalist wealth. :mad: :mad:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sun-spots-and-climate-change/
The Role of Sunspots and Solar Winds in Climate Change

Some skeptics of human-induced climate change blame global warming on natural variations in the sun’s output due to sunspots and/or solar wind. They say it’s no coincidence that an increase in sunspot activity and a run-up of global temperatures on Earth are happening concurrently, and view regulation of carbon emissions as folly with negative ramifications for our economy and tried-and-true energy infrastructure

More elitist mumbo jumbo

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/solar-forecasts-and-climate-change-09-05-22/
.................................................. .......................

And even more conspiratorial panty wearing tree hugging scientists.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/effect-of-sun-on-climate-faq.html#bf-toc-1

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/themes/primary/images/logo-ucs.png

Twentieth century climate and solar variations

The rate at which solar energy reaches the Earth’s surface in any location depends on the season, time of day, cloudiness and the concentration of small aerosol particles in the atmosphere. (see aerosols FAQ). During the late twentieth century, the average amount of solar energy reaching the surface decreased slightly due to atmospheric particles (aerosols), particularly in urban locations, that reflect the sun’s energy back into space. This pollution did not cause net global cooling because it was more than counteracted by the increasing concentrations of heat- trapping gases in the atmosphere.

[Greyfox]

Another lame attempt to re write science by the woefully amateur climatologists here. Unlikely the sun will change things either way anytime soon.



When science agrees with your beliefs it's good stuff.
When science doesn't support your beliefs, rather than change your thinking you discredit the methods used.
Interesting.

[hcap]

When science agrees with your beliefs it's good stuff.
When science doesn't support your beliefs, rather than change your thinking you discredit the methods used.
Interesting.The quality of the so-called "science" of the article that started this absurd thread, (once again another piss poor anti-AGW rant) is an embarrassment. I used much better sources. Those sources neither agree or disagree with my "political" or personal choices as conservatives often claim.

The science comes first, then we choose. As I mentioned previously"Unlikely the sun will change things either way anytime soon."

From a peer reviewed paper

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Grand_Solar_Min_500.jpg

Feulner (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL042710/abstract) (2010) examined the impact on global warming if the sun fell into a Grand Solar Minimum. The global mean temperature difference is shown for the time period 1900 to 2100 for the IPCC A2 emissions scenario (relative to zero for the average temperature during the years 1961 to 1990). The red line shows predicted temperature change for the current level of solar activity, the blue line shows predicted temperature change for solar activity at the much lower level of the Maunder Minimum, and the black line shows observed temperatures from the NASA GISS dataset through 2010. The authors found that the average global surface temperature would be diminished by no more than 0.3°C due to the lower solar activity, which would offset only a small fraction of human-caused global warming.

[hcap]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/aug/14/global-warming-solar-minimum-barely-dent

A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming ......Jones et al. (2012) (PDF available here) arrived at a nearly identical result, with cooling from another Dalton and Maunder minimum at 0.09°C and 0.26°C, respectively. Similarly, a new paper by Anet et al. (2013) found that a grand solar minimum will cause no more than 0.3°C cooling over the 21st century.

[hcap]

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/13/3679662/global-warming-speed-up-not-ice-age/

U.K. tabloids, conservative media, and others are (mis)reporting that the Earth will enter a “mini ice age” in the 2030s. In fact, not only is the story wrong, the reverse is actually true.

....The Earth is headed toward an imminent speed-up in global warming, as many recent studies have made clear, like this June study by NOAA. Indeed, a March study, entitled “Near-term acceleration in the rate of temperature change,” makes clear that a stunning acceleration in the rate of global warming is around the corner — with Arctic warming rising 1°F per decade by the 2020s!

Also, right now, we appear to be in the midst of a long-awaited jump in global temperatures. Not only was 2014 the hottest year on record, but 2015 is in the process of blowing that record away. On top of that, models say a massive El Niño is growing, as USA Today reported last week. Since El Niños tend to set the record for the hottest years (since the regional warming adds to the underlying global warming trend), if 2015/2016 does see a super El Niño then next year may well crush the record this year sets.

Whatever near-term jump we see in the global temperatures is thus likely to be followed by an accelerating global warming trend — one that would utterly overwhelm any natural variations such as a temporary reduction in solar intensity. A recent study** concluded that “any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming.”

(The peer reviewed study**)

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150623/ncomms8535/abs/ncomms8535.html

Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum

[tucker6]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/aug/14/global-warming-solar-minimum-barely-dent

A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming
The problem with all papers dedicated to solar forcing such as this one is that they always focus on direct forcing, and not the very many indirect forcings out there that we know and understand so little about. These indirect forcings include changes to clouds, ocean currents, and air currents.

[tucker6]

U.K. tabloids, conservative media, and others are (mis)reporting that the Earth will enter a “mini ice age” in the 2030s. In fact, not only is the story wrong, the reverse is actually true.

....The Earth is headed toward an imminent speed-up in global warming, as many recent studies have made clear, like this June study by NOAA. Indeed, a March study, entitled “Near-term acceleration in the rate of temperature change,” makes clear that a stunning acceleration in the rate of global warming is around the corner — with Arctic warming rising 1°F per decade by the 2020s!

Also, right now, we appear to be in the midst of a long-awaited jump in global temperatures. Not only was 2014 the hottest year on record, but 2015 is in the process of blowing that record away. On top of that, models say a massive El Niño is growing, as USA Today reported last week. Since El Niños tend to set the record for the hottest years (since the regional warming adds to the underlying global warming trend), if 2015/2016 does see a super El Niño then next year may well crush the record this year sets.

Whatever near-term jump we see in the global temperatures is thus likely to be followed by an accelerating global warming trend — one that would utterly overwhelm any natural variations such as a temporary reduction in solar intensity. A recent study concluded that “any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming.”


For being non-religious, you put quite a bit of fanaticism in this post Cappy. Almost embarrassing really.

[hcap]

Once again peer-review versus crappola.

Get back to me when a respected accredited source backs you up.

The opinion piece that started this thread is bogus non-scientific non-peer-reviewed piece of fluff.

I realize your conspiratorial theory pontificates climate "alarmists" are poisoning the..........(repeat mindlessly)

1) Peer-review process
2) Scientific journals
2) All domestic and international scientific governmental and scholarly organizations.
4) All respected media outlets...the "lamestream media"... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

But that does not mean deniers are anywhere close to reality.

In other words "ALL HAT, NO CATTLE". Again and again and again
:sleeping:

[tucker6]

I am already on record IN THIS THREAD as saying I don't believe the sun will cause a mini ice age. Not sure what you believe is being denied. Take off your tinfoil and try to understand what the other side is saying. What I am saying is the following:

Almost every paper in climate science is an emotional, faith-based appeal to money. Therefore, most papers reach the conclusion(s) they were intended to reach prior to the research.

You then bring out this breathless "peer reviewed" garbage as if that means anything in this field. If Boxcar wrote a religious paper and he had five other Boxcars review it, would you accept the findings? I mean, it would pass muster as "peer reviewed" alright, but not quite what I envisioned for a thoughtful review.

[Rise Over Run]

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc339/mister_obvious/Obama-tweet-clock_1.jpg (http://s525.photobucket.com/user/mister_obvious/media/Obama-tweet-clock_1.jpg.html)

[dartman51]

It was bullshit when it started and it's still bullshit.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

From the article: Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

Also: Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that "human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems." Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing "anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing."

And finally: Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

[Tom]

Rise Over Run......well played! :lol:

Have you seen the hcap Global arming Coloring Book -you comes with only red and orange crayons!

[Tom]

The Idiot N chief is laying some outrageous scenarios in France today - stuff only fools will believe.

Right, hcap? :D

If Obama would devote half the time and energy to ISIS, who is a REAL threat, they would be wiped out in a week.

[classhandicapper]

The Idiot N chief is laying some outrageous scenarios in France today - stuff only fools will believe.

Right, hcap? :D

If Obama would devote half the time and energy to ISIS, who is a REAL threat, they would be wiped out in a week.


In the darkest places of my mind I can't help but ask why terrorists target innocent people at work, at ball games, enjoying music, on a bus or train, shopping in a market etc... when they could change the world by taking out the corrupt criminals at the climate meeting. How often are they going to have them all in one place?

[reckless]

I bet Bill Gates, Tom Steyer and the rest of the lunatic left will be nice and warm in their billion-dollar fortresses this coming winter, and every winter.
It's the rest of the world, especially those poorer third-world nations, that could freeze to death for all they care.

The anti-growth and criminal climate change cabal will do more damage to freedom and prosperity around the world than any alleged wrongdoings done by Exxon, BP, or all the coal companies.

Cheap oil and energy is the engine that drives all the world's economies.

Liberal billionaires have their money and have the politicians in their pockets so --- to hell with everyone else.

[classhandicapper]

Liberal billionaires have their money and have the politicians in their pockets so --- to hell with everyone else.

I'd be willing to make the largest wager of my life that George Soros is going to make money off whatever his evil empire is pushing on this issue. I disagree with Gates on a lot of issues, but Soros is a different breed. That man is soulless.

[redshift1]

It was bullshit when it started and it's still bullshit.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

From the article: Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.


WSJ article on climate from 2014 authored by Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer.
Interesting collaboration of a climate scientist and the CEO of the Heartland Institute.

Bast who's claim to fame is his self admitted 8 years as an undergraduate without
attaining a degree of any kind. Apparently his 8 years of undergraduate work
qualified him for the job of Heartland Institute CEO.

By any measure the article is merely an opinion piece without any scientific merit
and devoid of any statistical analysis that would support their claims.

.

[Tom]

In the darkest places of my mind I can't help but ask why terrorists target innocent people at work, at ball games, enjoying music, on a bus or train, shopping in a market etc... when they could change the world by taking out the corrupt criminals at the climate meeting. How often are they going to have them all in one place?

I was thinking that today - all those targets, er, leaders, in one spot.
Like cockroaches on a Big Mac just before it gets served!

[dartman51]

WSJ article on climate from 2014 authored by Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer.
Interesting collaboration of a climate scientist and the CEO of the Heartland Institute.

Bast who's claim to fame is his self admitted 8 years as an undergraduate without
attaining a degree of any kind. Apparently his 8 years of undergraduate work
qualified him for the job of Heartland Institute CEO.

By any measure the article is merely an opinion piece without any scientific merit
and devoid of any statistical analysis that would support their claims.

.


Typical Left Wing crap. You attack the people that write the article and ignore the article. Read the article, then come back with some PROOF that the surveys and FACTS are wrong. If you can't then STFU, and go stock up on some more tin foil. :rolleyes:

[Tom]

were all gonna die guys

My goal is to live forever.
So far, so good.

[reckless]

I'd be willing to make the largest wager of my life that George Soros is going to make money off whatever his evil empire is pushing on this issue. I disagree with Gates on a lot of issues, but Soros is a different breed. That man is soulless.

And that would be a good, winning wager for you, classhandicapper, for sure.

George Soros is a top-class gonif of the highest order.

You could also add Rham Emanuel, the shanty Kennedy clan, Obama's donors and crony businessmen, the despicable Al Gore Jr. and a host of other politically connected creeps that have made a fortune off of the global warming, greenhouse gases and carbon footprint swindle via the Chicago Climate Change Exchange.