ANTARCTIC GLACIER REVELATION POKES ANOTHER HOLE IN THEORY …
Two recent studies by the British Antarctic Survey (BAC) are calling into question long-touted “evidence” of global warming – the theory used by governments around the globe to raise taxes, expand bureaucracy and redistribute billions of dollars to third world countries.
According to one study – released in February – Antarctica’s Pine Island glacier previously experienced a period of accelerated thinning similar to what it has experienced in recent decades.
Why is that important? Because the glacier’s earlier accelerated thinning took place 8,000 years ago – several millennia before the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. Or before the dawn of time if you believe Mike Huckabee.
Even more amazing? The glacier’s ice replenished itself naturally after thinning. Call us crazy, but that sounds like the sort of natural progression global warming “deniers”have been citing for years by way of refuting the government-backed climate alarmists.
The Pine Island glacier is one of the largest ice drainage basins in the world – and has been Exhibit A for those who argue in favor of the myth of man-made global warming.
Which reminds us … it’s impossible to argue with supporters of global warming.
How come?
“Because every weather pattern they witness proves their point,” we wrote back in January. “Hot summer? Global warming. Mild summer? Global warming. Warm winter? Global warming. Frigid winter? Global warming. Whatever the thermostat is doing – and for however long it does it – supporters of global warming see nothing but the validation of their belief.”
“That’s cult-like behavior,” we added.
Unfortunately, the data isn’t supporting the contention. In fact according to the latest data from NASA the global warming “pause” that began seventeen years ago continued last year. And as of October 2013, Antarctic sea ice extent was at its highest level in recorded history – putting a continental-sized crimp in the whole “polar ice caps are melting” theory.
233 comments
… and the temperature of the Earth’s core is several million degrees.
And that has what to do with what exactly?
It has to do with the fact that the main global warming boogieman is a complete hack job moron.
Uh-huh – well, this “moron” is not in the same boat with GrandTango, dumbass.
Uh-huh – well, this “moron” is not in the same boat with GrandTango, dumbass.
TBG admits this hurts, *because it’s true.*
Ellington and TBG just use GT as “movable ballast”. We are still awaiting an answer from the rules committee per our request to return with one fewer crewmember than we started with…
When you’re in a *really deep* hole…
stop digging?
(Channeling Paul Harvey . . And now for the rest of the story . . .)
AND HERE IS THE BRITISH ANTARCTIC SURVEY’S CURRENT POSITION ON GLOBAL WARMING:
The 2007 Assessment Report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — made up of the world’s foremost climate scientists — provided unequivocal evidence for a warming climate, and a high degree of certainty that human activities are largely responsible for global warming since the middle of the 20th century.
The British Antarctic Survey fully supports the major conclusions of the IPCC 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), namely:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level.
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in human-induced greenhouse gas concentrations.
Since this last Assessment Report the scientific evidence for dangerous, long-term and potentially irreversible climate change caused by human activity has strengthened significantly. Recent research, not available at the time AR4 was published, has shown that it is likely that human activity has contributed to climate change in Antarctica, as well as over the other continents.
Changes in the Antarctic climate system and its impacts on the Antarctic environment have been identified and were published in the first comprehensive review — Antarctic Climate Change and the Environment — on 1 December. Some of these changes have been shown to result from man-made increases in carbon dioxide and the reductions in the ozone layer.
British Antarctic Survey recognises the urgency for continued investigations into the regional and global consequences of changes taking place at the Polar Regions. Through its research programme, Polar Science for Planet Earth, British Antarctic Survey scientists strive to provide the best scientific evidence to the international scientific community and to UK policy makers.
In order to believe that man can possibly cause the climate on earth to change one must first totally disregard natural phenomena that have been proven to have more impact than man, such as volcanoes (above the water’s surface and subsurface), wild fires, sun spot activity, etc.
After ignoring all that evidence there is the road block of the climate alarmists themselves. In any field of science the scientists share their studies with peers for a formal peer review. They don’t get to choose who does the review, they put their study and evidence out there for anyone to review. The climate alarmist such as the parasites at East Anglia University (sp?) refuse;
1) to share their computer models for peer review
2) to share their data for peer review
3) to share their methodologies for peer review
In short we are to believe them because “they said so”.
IPCC did not perform ANY independent studies of their own, they only conglomerated studies they chose to use and continued to use them even when some were proven to be inaccurate (I chose to be kind rather than call them bald face lies).
If I told you I could jump over a house in a single bound you would demand to be able to watch me do such a thing, even though it has no impact on your life in any way shape or form. You would probably even drive a number of miles to see and probably pack a picnic lunch to boot. But, with climate change, or whatever the phrase is this week, you swallow the story like a bass swallows may flies with out question and in fact demand I prove them wrong rather than require they submit for unequivocal peer review of their cream topped cow paddies.
Perfect. These lemmings truly are hopeless in their hysterically cult-like worship of “man caused global warming, climate change, global disruption, climate warming, climate disruption, global change.”
Hmmm. That’s their current position?
“The record shows that this region has warmed since the late 1950s, at a similar magnitude to that observed in the Antarctic Peninsula and central West Antarctica,” said a BAS study published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters last year, “however, this warming trend is not unique.”
“More dramatic isotopic warming (and cooling) trends occurred in the mid-19th and 18th centuries, suggesting that at present the effect of anthropogenic climate drivers at this location has not exceeded the natural range of climate variability in the context of the past ~300 years,” the study said.
http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/503527/1/grl51035.pdf
Go to their website and read their position!!!
Yeah. That was from their website.
Here you go: (http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_bas/publications/month/paper.php?id=2503)
In addition to what I pasted above, it says, “The Antarctic Peninsula and West Antarctica have warmed dramatically in recent decades, with some records suggesting that these are among the most rapidly warming regions on Earth. However, the lack of long-term instrumental records from this data-sparse region is hindering our ability to place these recent changes in a longer-term context.
Here – let me help – go to their website and search “global warming” – it will bring up a page titled ”
British Antarctic Survey Climate Change Position Statement” I copied and pasted it below. You are posting information from ONE STUDY and ONE POSITION PAPER from their site – please read the BAC’s position on global warming.
I did. I also read what I posted. It seems like they may contradict each other. Which one is correct?
Wait…don’t tell me…the one that supports your argument. Gotcha!
They do not contradict their position – they posted their position – and then they posted ONE RESEARCH STUDY that does not contradict their position but the ONE RESEARCH STUDY says that the data is open to interpretation and that more research and more data is needed. Please tell me what their position on global warming is – I dare you!
Yaaaawwwwn…ooooh…a dare????
Their “postition” intimates inevitability.
Their “ONE RESEARCH STUDY” says we don’t have any idea what the hell this means long term because we don’t know.
Paraphrasing: our conclusions are inconclusive but that’s not going to stop us from hopping on this ride. There’s a shitpot of research money to be made here!.
Yaaaawwwwn…ooooh…a dare????
Their “postition” intimates inevitability.
Their “ONE RESEARCH STUDY” says we don’t have any idea what the hell this means long term because we don’t know.
Paraphrasing: our conclusions are inconclusive but that’s not going to stop us from hopping on this ride. There’s a LOT of research money to be made here!.
I notice you don’t link to either of the studies. Could you be lying again?
You can trace the decline of public interest in Global Whatevering to right about the time “An Inconvenient Truth” came out. Now it’s basically dead last among polls, right behind infrastructure development as something people care about. With the media, Hollywood, and Aca-THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED-demia all 100% on board, you’d think the alarmists would at least have better PR.
Climate change timeline
1970?s–Global cooling, another ice age is coming, better wear that coat
1980’s–Acid rain, turn your hair green, kill off vegetation.
Late 1980’s—There is a hole in the ozone layer and it will kill us all.
Early 1990?s—Global warming gonna get ya. Only have 5 years to stop it. It’s mean old man’s fault.
Mid 1990?s–The SUV causes global warming. Only have 5 years to save the world.
Late 1990?s–The science is settled. Man is killing mother earth with its fossil fuels. We’re dead in 5.
Early 2000?s–C02 is the cause. And cows. We will all catch fire in 5 years if we don’t start jogging.
Mid 2000?s—Now we call it global climate change. Still man’s fault, got 5 years to reverse it.
Late 2000?s–Uh oh. Fudged data, we have actually been cooling. Still man’s fault, dead in 5.
Early 2010?s—Cooling or warming, no matter the C02 level it’s still mans fault, still dead in 5.
And – as Jay has astutely pointed out – we find out that just below the earth’s surface it’s shockingly several million degrees. And it’s mans fault. Dead in 5.
Man caused global warming, climate change, whatever the gloom and doomers are calling it this week, is the biggest hoax/fraud ever perpetrated on the people of this earth.
It was never in doubt that you’d come on here posting some WorldNetDaily nonsense calling global warming a hoax . . .
Climate change deniers amaze me. Normally, when over 95% of scientists agree on something, I have a tendency to agree with them. Not the fringe right wing, though. If Obama said that the world was round, those fuckers would insist that it was flat.
Lemmings like you and SCDumbass who lap this climate change stuff up uncritically amaze me. “95% of scientists” agreed on no such thing. That’s as big a lie as the hoax lies themselves. Read this and maybe your idea might change as to where that “95%” came from.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/
The articles on Forbes are a joke. The writers work for the Heartland Institute, which has made millions by providing anti-science for industry propaganda. (Years ago, they were part of the propaganda movement telling you cigarettes don’t cause cancer). If you want to read a great book about the Heartland Institute’s history, read Merchants of Doubt by Oreskes and Conway.
The commenters on Forbes get to have a field day tearing apart the shoddy “data” that lies behind each piece of propaganda.
I guess the WSJ is a “joke” too, huh?
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136?mg=reno64-wsj
The WSJ is owned by Murdoch now. ‘Nuff said.
Funny how YOU get to disallow any material except that which YOU believe
Funny how YOU are doing the exact same thing lower on this same comments section.
All I did was point out that they REFUSE to allow anyone to review their models, data or methodologies except a few hand picked close “friends”. Remember the clown with the “cold fusion” thing. He submitted it for open review and it was debunked in a few days (screwed up his methodology). Simple question, why won’t they submit their models, data and methodologies for open review by any and all comers? Because they have no faith in their story line and once they do submit it in such a fashion their whole story and revenue stream dry up.
All you did was do exactly what you accused someone else of doing!
EJB:
1) Look up the International Surface Temperature Initiative.
2) I will happily send you the CONUS (continental US) temperature series. You can then come up with your own warming/cooling conclusions rather than spew “they REFUSE” bullshit here. I’d have to work harder to get you one of the global records.
As someone who works in this area, I resent posers like yourself spreading misinformation.
Ok.
Al Gore & company have “made millions by providing
anti– “science” for industry propaganda“.These scientists can’t forecast what the weather will be like tomorrow accurately. Their “stories” seem to be ever-changing (from global cooling to the current climate change).
They’ve lied: http://dump.kurthbemis.com/climategate2/.
But the
global cooling, global warmingclimate change cult is right?Ok. Got it.
“Al Gore & company have “made millions by providing anti- “science” for industry propaganda”.”
And Big Oil has made trillions upon trillions and are laughing all the way to the bank!
Yep. And I have contributed graciously to big oil since 1982. I do love a big gas guzzler.
That being said, does that make it ok that Al ‘Chicken Little’ Gore has made a ton of money getting you sheep on board to preach his nonsense?
Yep – it is an Al Gore conspiracy – have you checked to make sure that you are against everything that he believes in???? Better hop to it! LOL
I checked. I am. I can’t help it…I just must be allergic to the snake oil.
Big Oil actually sells a *real* product.
And RoadKill such as you and your intellectual equal, GrandTango, slurp up every word from WorldNetDaily!
Actually, I think this comes from the Daily Caller.
I know, tomato, tomahto.
Yea…..and most of Monsanto’s Scientist’s say GMOs are fine, along with the FDA….Don’t bet your life on it.
Climate change deniers amaze me.
We are an amazing group.
Of course they would. They’re GrandTango 2.0. Next will be a copy/paste of made-up Drudge headlines.
Another lemming shows up…right on time
SC Blues and Smirks,
*Thinks of how to make this palatable to y’all*
Take some public transportation or carpool in a Prius to your nearest public library. Check out and read some of the Viking Sagas. If you are near Cola town check out those sand hills and think of how they got there.
Take note that SUVs weren’t around 100 years (and longer) ago.
Also notice, without looking directly at it, that big bright thermonuclear reaction in the sky…
Go home, have a cold one.
Flip on Jim Gandy on Channel 19. Write down his forecast for Sunday.
TBG is going to issue a personal weather forecast for y’all :
Sunday will have a high of 89 and a low of 68. Though it will rain within 50 miles of you…you will not receive a measurable amount of rain.
On Monday, compare Sunday’s actual weather to Gandy’s Sunday Forecast and to TBG’s. Reflect that Gandy has the chutzpah to predict the weather 35 years from now.
Reflect also that TBG is a nom de plume of an internet commenter with zero meteorological training that didn’t even bother to check Sunday’s forecast before writing this…
Give TBG a holla back on Monday.
Cheers!
1. It’s been real hot someplace once, and it wasn’t anywhere near my house.
2. It’s colder than that where I live.
3. I have an air conditioner.
4. I doesn’t live on the coast.
5. I don’t have any grandchildren
6. It snowed last winter
7. It’s still cold in his refrigerator.
8. Everything looks the same outside.
9. Republicans are against abortion
10. I don’t trust scientists.
NO! I have absolute proof that there were coal-burning factories in the Siberian tundra of 45,000 BC! I can get it for you! It’s on the mother ship with Elvis, Jack Kennedy, and Michelle Obama’s proof of meat causing global warming!
The used the coal burning factories to smelt all that copper they were stealing from the Great Lakes!!!!
I smelt copper once.. fishy.
FWIW, TBG just checked his Channel19 Weather App (His kids pick up too many bad words when he actually *watches* WLTX News.) They are calling for 82/60 with a 10% chance of rain on Sunday.
TBG hopes they are right!
*OOPS!*
Give TBG a holla back on Monday.
…or not.
Oopsie.
Thanks Sandy. Liberals would be HILARIOUS…if they were not so dangerous…
We’ve never had it so good under Nikki, eh smack ?
Whenever deniers mention the hole in the ozone layer, they act as though that was just a false alarm. They never mention the 1985 Vienna Convention, which banned the gases causing the ozone depletion. The ozone layer problem is actually a success story for international agreement. I seriously doubt deniers realize this because it’s pretty obvious they don’t know many facts about the issues, period.
Of course Climate Disruption sycophants never mention that China continues to pump all of the allegedly banned ozone depleting chemicals into the atmosphere in concentrations that exceed the amounts released prior to 1985 as their amendments to the Montreal Protocol that provides the binding regulation enforcement mechanisms to the Geneva Convention have ever been signed…
And then there’s all that sulfur dioxide from their expanding coal power production…
2007-China Closes Ozone Depleting Chemical Plants. A contribution to avert a global health catastrophe.
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=514&ArticleID=5624
See, I provide sources.
It was apparently too late, because they found an ozone hole above China in 2006.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-05/04/content_582624.htm
So do I, see page 346, the “Decision on China’s Noncompliance”, then scroll up and down and look at the other countries who are ignoring the bans…
http://ozone.unep.org/Publications/MP_Handbook/MP-Handbook-2012.pdf
Oh, no! China was supposed to only consume 20.5336 tons of CFC chemicals, and the actually consumed (wait for it…) 20.539 tons.
If we were at the point with controlling greenhouse gases where we were slapping noncompliance status on countries for a going a fraction of a percent over their targets, we would light years ahead of where we are now.
They’ve cheated every year but that’s not the real issue – the important issue is, we didn’t stop using the chemicals at all, we just “reduced” the amount we were using. All of those countries in the “noncompliant” list still routinely produce, use and disperse CFCs
Yes, China wins the Shithole-of-the-Century award in pollution, which is why international groups are trying very hard to get China to change. Much how they are trying to get us to change. But they’re just as stubborn as us.
Imagine that.
When they took so much of our manufacturing, they also tool all the pollution that came with it.
They banned jet aircraft?
Probably didn’t mention it, because of the scientific research which proved air conditioning gasses did not destroy ozone. It never was true, but it’s all politics, anyway.
Firstly the idea that we were headed for another Ice Age in the 1970’s was mostly media driven. The vast majority of scientific papers back then backed the view that the Earth was warming, not cooling.
The “climategate” controversy at the University of East Anglia was not proof of some grand conspiracy. Investigations into it have found that the evidence of climate change is unchanged.
So it is settled science, since when has science ever been settled?
Since those foisting this hoax upon us decided it was so.
If your doctor tells you have cancer, do you run to some quack who will tell you don’t?
It amazes me how determined some people are to be ignorant of science. At this point, climate denialism is a cult religion on the far right.
No, don’t you see? Something vaguely similar happened 8,000 years ago, thus all other facts are rendered irrelevant.
Are the scientist at British Antarctic Survey rendered irrelevant also?
Did you read their current position on global warming? It is posted prominently on their website.
And their position is refuted by their own research…
LOL – now that’s rich – we believe A and we post prominently on our website that we believe A but our research refutes A! And you believe the research???
I’m not sure his point is believing the research so much as pointing out the fact that they contradict their own position.
That is not what he said – you read minds now too?
No, I just have a remarkable grasp of the English language.
And you’re prescient and modest as well Bob. You hit the nail on the head.
BAS supports
global cooling, global warming, climate changeclimate disruption “science” in the strongest terms yet their own research (not prominently published on the front page) refutes the idea that the dramatic climate variations we’re being warned about are unusually rapid or related anthropomorphic causes.“And their position is refuted by their own research…”
LOL. Too much! I would love to see some soulless sell-out Republican use this line in a presidential debate. Please, please, please!
The Colonel is correct. I posted it below but here it is again.
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_bas/publications/month/paper.php?id=2503
The record shows that this region has warmed since the late 1950s, at a similar magnitude to that observed in the Antarctic Peninsula and central West Antarctica, however, this warming trend is not unique. More dramatic isotopic warming (and cooling) trends occurred in the mid-19th and 18th centuries, suggesting that at present the effect of anthropogenic climate drivers at this location has not exceeded the natural range of climate variability in the context of the past ~300 years.
Enjoy your crow.
To be fair, climate change proponents readily admit their computer models are based on what happened historically.
Something vaguely similar happened 8,000 years ago,…
How about 250 to 1200 years ago?
You are, of course, aware that oranges were grown commercially, off and on, in SC from the first colonization up until the mid 1700s.
When the Vikings named Greenland, “Greenland”* ~1000 years ago, they weren’t using TBG’s incisive sarcasm techniques.
* “You don’t have to call me “Darlin'”, Darlin’…
You never even call me by my name…”
Good god. The Viking naming Greenland evidence you provide is just silly. The Greenland ice sheet is approximately 400k-800k years old. Ice cores have have proven this. Greenland was not “green” when the vikings tried to settle there. There are several theories about how the name came about but not one credible theory says that Greenland was a hospitable place.
The Greenland ice sheet is approximately 400k-800k years old. Ice cores have have proven this. Greenland was not “green” when the vikings tried to settle there.
The coast of Greenland was green…hence the name ,the dairy farming etc.
Just for shits and giggles can you tell ol’ TBG what was in Greenland approximately 500k-900K years ago (before the ice sheets formed)?
Your argument about the name Greenland being proof is pretty suspect and over-simplistic. Go ahead and research it. At best you have stated a theory. There are other theories that have a lot more credence.
Specifically the name greenland has been called a mis-translation by many. Some of the early maps called it “Gruntland” or groundland. Since there were no trees on it then or now that would make some sense.
Yeah…and the Erikson’s effed up naming Vinland, ‘Vinland” also.
This just in.
William of Occam just slit his wrists.
[C]an you tell ol’ TBG what was in Greenland approximately 500k-900K years ago (before the ice sheets formed)?
Analogy FAIL. If a doctor shows me with an X-ray, MRI and/or blood work that beyond all doubt I have cancer, I’ll believe it.
But not one scientist – not one – has EVER proven beyond all doubt that man is causing this earth to warm. Not a single damn one. Many may THINK that’s the case, primarily due to fat government contracts rolling in telling them to think that and to feed their garbage into their “computer models” in order to “prove” it, but nobody has ever proven it to be undeniable fact. People like you just lap it up and believe it to be so because they tell you it is “settled science.” Which is never settled.
You don’t know how to read an X-Ray, MRI, and/or blood work. You also don’t know how to interpret climate data. If you did know, you would not be a denier.
You twist like a pretzel. I never said I could read any of those things and that’s beside the point. My point was that not a single so-called scientist anywhere at any time has proven beyond any doubt that man causes “global warming.” Yet you believe it because they tell you too. It may be hard for you but try thinking for yourself.
hahaha..remember “carbon credits”, and they wanted us to buy them, then they would send the money to Africa or something? THAT WOULD FIX GLOBAL WARMING/COOLING/CLIMATECHANGE!!1!
Of course I do! And to any “thinking” person, that’s clue #1 as to what global warming, climate change, global disruption and so and so forth is REALLY all about. A big government money grab. But many lemmings on this thread clearly don’t think.
No scientist ever proved that tobacco caused cancer, either.
AGAIN – that isn’t the question. Stop deflecting. Do I or do I not have cancer? If I do, and you can prove it to me beyond all doubt, no matter WHAT caused it, I have to believe it. But – AGAIN – no scientist has ever proven, or come close to proving, that man is the cause of so-called global warming, global disruption, climate change, climate disruption, global climate, disruption warming….whatever.
Do I or do I not have cancer? If I do, and you can prove it to me beyond all doubt, no matter WHAT caused it, I have to believe it.
——–
That’s why I used this analogy. You don’t have to *have* cancer for cigarettes to cause cancer – if you continue to smoke you are *more likely to get cancer*… because there is a *statistical* relationship between tobacco and cancer.. it’s not what *you* call proof, but it’s proof to the Reality Based Community.
Of course, that didn’t stop people from smoking… and getting cancer. They used the argument that they’ve been smoking for (however long) and don’t have cancer.. and they know someone who smoked all their life and doesn’t have cancer.. and no one has proved to *them* than tobacco causes cancer.
The idea that you can smoke 30 years and still not have cancer doesn’t mean that tobacco doesn’t cause cancer. First you have to realize the relationship between statistics and outcome – *then* you decide whether you want to smoke or not.
Well if I hadn’t seen any progression in symptoms in 17 years and that same doctor had told me 2-5 decades ago that I would be dead in 5 years from cardiovascular disease or dead in 10 years from diabetes or dead in 20 years from huntington’s disease then, yeah, I’d probably seek a second opinion.
…especially if that doctor’s prescribed course of action was always to give him MORE money to study my problems and MORE control over how to live my life.
Aren’t you pretty much doing the same thing?
I’ve been waiting on the 20 ft sea level rise that AlGore promised to happen by the year 2000. I live about 6 miles from the ocean on a hill and need that to sell some ocean front property.
He never predicted that. He said the predictions were a ~20 ft rise in sea levels when both the Antarctic and Greenland ice all melts. He did not specify how long that would take.
The vilification of Al Gore is best understood in the context of personalisation. When opponents attack something abstract – like science – the public may not associate with the argument. By giving a name and a face and a set of behavioural characteristics – being a rich politician, for example – it is easy to create a fictional enemy through inference and association. Al Gore is a successful politician who presented a film, his training and experience suitable to the task. To invoke Gore is a way to obfuscate climate science, for which Gore has neither responsibility, claim nor blame… and in this case you’re invoking him incorrectly by falsely attributing predictions he did not make.
I watched Al Gore’s documentary long ago and thought it was as hokey as the man himself. The science behind climate change is much more compelling than a documentary. The fact that these deniers focus on one old film shows how shallow their knowledge is about climate change.
Where is the link to this so-called study? I’m sure it’s already been thoroughly debunked.
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_bas/news/news_story.php?id=2468
You should really let people do their own research, they may learn something.
Nah – it just proves how lemmingesque some have become – challenging an assertion because you didn’t provide the footnotes is a common argument diffusion technique.
Anytime I post something I know will be challenged I try to provide the link to an authoritative source – its fun to watch them try to obfuscate themselves into a corner Google is my friend.
When you claim the earth is flat or that 2+2=5, you need to cite your sources.
Idcydm, I grant that some will get lost in the internet (probably deferring to porn at some point…) and thus the quality of the debate will improve
Native – If I ever claim that 2+2=5, I’ll provide my sources and show my work…
Colonel, haven’t you heard? Common Core makes it possible to get partial credit for wrong answers as long as you can “justify” your wrong answer. No need to cite sources or show your work, as long as you’re eating what the left is spoon-feeding you, you’ll be a success story.
The first “black: person I ever knew was named Mrs. White. She was my first grade teacher.
In Mrs. White’s world, you showed your work and provided the right answer or you got no credit. I think about her from time to time and marvel that one of the most important life lessons I ever learned came at age 6.
I understand but when someone ask for a link let them find it because they will probable get lost in cyber space.
“Because every weather pattern they witness proves their point,”
Hence the change of the problem name from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”. Of course the climate is changing as it has throughout millennia. There are multiple examples of slow and fast climate change throughout the geologic record.
The newest term is Climate Disruption. They change the name every time someone finally points out how flawed their argument is.
Damn it, you’re right, I forgot Obama’s latest crisis!
The scientists have always used both terms, to describe slightly different phenomenae. The media f’s it up. The most correct scientific way to use both terms is “Climate change being driven by net Global Warming.”
The issue isn’t that the climate is changing, nor even that the planet is getting warmer, but the _rate_ of change is faster than anytime in human history, and anytime long before that.
And they inevitably give the beginning of the apocalyptic scenario as being five years away. Close enough to now to panic the sheeple and far enough away for them to have forgotten when it doesn’t happen. The end is nye but not too nye. I call bull.
And: Obama is set to BAN Coal…because of this ignorance-based Global Warming fairy tale…
My family is already paying about $2,500 more each year in gas and energy since Obama took office…and Obama admitted utility costs for families will SKYROCKET when he bans coal…
People: we cannot take much more of this Leftwing Dictator, who got elected for REVENGE..He does not care if you suffer. He likes it if your kids do without…while he feasts w/ his family…
Obama wants to PUNISH you for not being like him…
Fuck your family. I like my water clean and clear.
Coming from Appalachia, I couldn’t help but notice the irony and hilarity of your first sentence.
CiC – we don’t always agree but I sure enjoy your posts!
Thank You, Blues! I know, we do not always agree, but you do contribute to what makes this worthwhile, the exchange of ideas and information, which may differ from our own. Believe it or not, I do learn from it.
Jeez, you two…get a room, already!
*chuckles goodnaturedly*
No man, I’ll leave that kind of thing up to Grand Tango. He’s really been out there as of late.
“Jeez, you two…get a room, already!”
Somebody sounds jealous to me!
America has done nothing but raise the quality of water year after year.
And it’s PRODUCERS (see Corporations and Business) paying for it…because the Gov’t has no money, except ours that it takes…
So if you like clean water, you better pull your pecker out of that knot-hole in the tree you’re humpin’ on …and thank a manufacturer or industry CEO for paying for your health…
Tell that to Kingston, Tenn or W. Virgina.
Looks like you and Obama’s EPA F*#ked up, if there’s a problem…
Can you not do ANYTHING right…Dumb@$$?????…after all we have paid you…
YES! Clean Water and air. Let go all nuclear powered!
Amiright Fukushima?
Nuclear is the way to go, Fukushima is over-hyped, as was Three Mile Island. Chernobyl was the really bad one, but no western reactor use that type of design and the operators there were conducting really poorly thought out and dangerous experiments.
http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/
“over hyped”. lulz..tell the people in Fukushima that.
The people of Fukushima are aware this isn’t as bad as they were told, they are ready to go home. It’s not a “meltdown” or anything of the type. Is it a disaster, yes. Is it the end of the world no! Is it dangerous to be within 10 miles of the reactors no, is it dangerous to be within 500 yards yes.
Having friends that live in Virginia’s coal country I know most of your fellow countrymen disagree with you on ending coal mining. The entire economy of an already poor area (Appalachia) will collapse.
Slag on President Obama all you want, but when you talk about Obama and energy costs, I take it personally, because your saying that I’m too studid to remember back 6 years to energy costs going thru the roof with no end in sight. And if you double down to “When Obama took office” like you did, I doubly resent it, because you think I’m too stupid to remember what happened between energy costs going thru the roof, and Obama taking office, namely the worst recession in 75 years with job losses of 1/2 a million a month and more.
Given a choice between high energy costs and the economy in late 2008- early 2009, I’ll take today’s energy costs without blinking.
Almost all of Bush’s 2 terms, Bush’s economy was one of the best in the history of the country…SC had a Billion Dollar surplus one year, under /Bush…we had FULL employment, and rising salaries…
You’re a GD lair, to say different..
And you are STUPID from bring up the Ignorant claims you brought up. I mean that personally, Dumb@$$….
So many mistakes, so little time.
Nationwide, the Bush economy was a disaster for the country. Under Bush the nation added fewer jobs than under any president since Herbert Hoover, even the economy under President Obama has added more jobs than under Bush. Look it up.
As for gas prices, they have increased since 1999, with the only major interruption the recession of 2008-2009. Again look it up. I found the information after about 30 seconds of googling. You should be able to find it . . . eventually.
As for the prices going up because of the Democratic congress and down because of Bush policies, show me. What policies did Congress take, and what action did Bush take to free reserves. Be specific, you’ve been wrong on too much so far for me to take your unsupported word.
And Obama f*#king that up??? Drilling has gone up under Obama, domestic production has gone up, and imports have gone down. Those are facts. And facts beat your fantasies all day, every day.
I don’t have to Google S#*t you ignorant F*#king Obama paid-drone.
The fact that you have to Google for your reality, shows what a F*#king idiot your are….
I LIVED under the Bush presidency and flourished…and I’m suffering under Obama..We had as low as 4.5% unemployment, w/ a FULL workforce, not millions dropping out.
Gas prices are now AT LEAST $1.50 more per gal. per EVERY GALLON Sold to EVERY American (and all the illegals too)….That’s an exorbitant Obama TAX…Utilities are up drastically too…
Facts are FACTs and reality is REALITY…So carry your Ignorant F*#king propaganda for Dumb@$$#$ over the Huff-Po or The Politico, where the people are STUPID enough to swallow it…
What families experience very day trumps your manufactured dogma…designed to cover for your F*#ked Up god-Obama…
Well don’t let me spoil your arrogant invincible ignorance.
Feel free to believe any stupid thing you want to. And I’ll feel free to point and laugh at you.
Yep. Facts are facts, and you are very good at closing your eyes so that you don’t see them.
Finally, whether you and the people you know flourished while Bush was president or not, the facts are there, the reality that you can’t face, that job creation during Bush’s presidency was the worst since Herbert Hoover. As for ‘my god-Obama’, unless things change dramatically, job creation under his presidency is going to be 2nd worst since Herbert Hoover. As I said originally, I’m not particularly interested in defending Obama. I am interested in not being insulted by people who think I’m stupid enough to believe made up ‘facts’.
The country is in a mess. The Congress would not be majority GOP and the Senate would not be headed to a Republican majority, if you were not such a F*#k up.
The media Bashed Bush every day for 8 years.. That’s how he was toppled, along w/ Homosexuals like Mark Foley and Larry Craig, infiltrating the GOP.
I lot of people who bought the media Bull-$#!t against Bush, are sorry they were Duped by Liars and Idiots like you and the DNC…
Wow, you need to up your prescription. Seriously you need help…
Be honest…You F*#kin’ Leftwing Idiots are just not used to hearing anything but the lies, myths and fables the liberal media feeds you, along w/ Obam’s D!*k you have stuffed down your throat…
If you’d heard any truth before, you’d have some legitimate response, other than that Stupid ‘prescription’ cliche, you vomited up…You blind Dumb@$$, anti-American Piece of Rotten S#!*…….
I’m not a left winger. I’m a moderate. I’ve even been called a conservative.
I can, however, make rational arguments unlike you. You’ve spouted a ton of nonsense without one shred of proof, evidence, or documentation for your statements.
When I was growing up conservatism required intelligent thought. William Buckley wasn’t always right but he was intellectually honest and in the Reagan years conservatism flourished. In fact, due to intellectual honesty and superiority of ideas, conservatism crushed the union-backed crony-populated democrats.
People like you are the problem with conservatism today. You can’t speak intelligently. You rely on crass insults because you can’t make your arguments.
The world is not black or white. It’s not left-wing or right-wing. The world is gray. Our population is full of moderates who want rational thought and rational ideas. Go take your meds and wake up.
People who go on trying to explain what they think they are, and present nothing but cliché, are self-centered and naive. You have an ignorant idea it’s about you…not about the country’s welfare…
If you happen to vote for a Conservative that’s a contribution…
Other than that, YOU are the problem. …You have done enough damage already…Nobody really cares how you’ve nuanced yourself into thinking you’re some sort of superior thinker. STFU and sit down.
Conditions are favorable for another El Nino this year, which would make 2014 the hottest year on record. If it’s a strong one, 2015 will likely break 2014 records. Meanwhile, Al Gore just prematurely ejaculated.
And meanwhile the global warming deniers wiped Big Oil’s jizz off their chins . . .
I trip chain so I don’t have to suck dick for gas money.
I hear lots of slurping sounds coming from you and your buddy GrandTango . . .
You strike me as a homophobe. Your go-to offense is to assault other’s sexuality. Are you a closet homosexual or are you a homophobe. It HAS to be either one or the other.
Yep – you got me – I am a homophobe – but I still like you and GrandTango anyway . . .so slurp on!
Per usual, pathologically unfunny.
Are you a closet homosexual or are you a homophobe. It HAS to be either one or the other.
*Claps*
All together now cadets and SPAWAR employees…
“Why couldn’t it be… BOTH?”
You should have been with me at the conference on global climate change in DC. There was a lot of slurping sounds to be heard there.
Don’t worry. After every 30-second TV news story about the hottest temperatures in recorded history, a friendly propagandist from Big Oil will come on and remind us how great Big Oil is for America.
And Al will take to the night time talk show circuit and explain he was wrong about the Earth’s core being millions of degrees, it’s actually gazillions of degrees down there.
You gonna fly a plane with a solar panel or wind energy? Check back with us when you can do that.
I wiped a lot of jizz off of my chin during my recent trip to DC to support Obama and Gore on this issue. I am an intelligent and competent meteorologist who should know better but sometimes you just feel like a nut.
Sounds like those late night visits to rest stops up and down I-95 sure paid off.
Jay – that’s “on record” meaning since we started keeping records. The Archeological record shows that the Earth was FAR hotter and far colder at many points in our geologic history. We are actually in a “cold period” in geologic temperature: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png
In the near term, the eruption of Krakatoa resulted in a net 3 degree average temperature decline world wide for more than three years(there are a number of other data sets that show different temperatures for different periods associated with that event).
And of course there was all those ice breakers that got stuck in the ice trying to save a bunch of climate alarmists that went to an area they though was going to prove they were right about the ice disappearing. You can’t make this stuff up, climate alarmists, screaming about disappearing ice stuck in the ice, then TWO ice breakers (two) get stuck in the ice (that is supposed to be disappearing) and finally rescued by another ice breaker with a helicopter. I don’t know if they have even yet got those ice breakers out yet.
Wasn’t that hilarious? Massive FAIL on their part. SMH
Want to guarantee snow? Have AlGore call a Global Warming convention…
Want to guarantee famine, war, and disease? Put a Republican in charge.
Want to guarantee hilarity, post a story to which you’ll respond.
I should charge a fee.
Yeah, like those Republicans JFK and LBJ. Idiot.
Nixon ended wars and brought our troops home.
Actually, it seems to work the way
WWI, Wilson, Dem
WWII, Roosevelt, Dem
Korea, Truman, Dem
Vietnam, Kennedy, Johnson Dem (this one is debatable)
Republicans are a smokescreen for the rich, and their constituents act like ignorant animals.
—-ice breakers that got stuck in the ice trying to save a bunch of climate alarmists —
This happened during the northern hemisphere winter which is the Antarctic summer. Very strange if there is global warming.
I have fully bought into the myth that global climate change is caused by man. In fact, I just returned from DC and I still haven’t decided whether Al Gore’s or Obama’s dick tasted better. I can tell you that global climate change is man made, though.
Hilarious how some folks base their entire belief system surrounding global warming on which position is taken by Al Gore or President Obama.
And sounds like you must suck lots of dicks so I’m guessing they ALL start to taste alike after awhile anyway . . .
Mr. Gandy I really need to know something. Will it rain in Liberty Hill, SC this Saturday? Can you please let me know, I mean since you can predict what the climate will be like in 200 years, I’m sure you as South Carolina’s Weatherman can give me a 100% accurate forecast for less than 48 hours away.
I will but you a 12 pack of PBR for every article you find published in a peer reviewed scientific journal after 2010 that concludes there is any doubt that climate change caused by human activity is a reality.
Reality is a liberal hoax.
Yeh all them scientists?
DAMN LIBERALS!
WHO the hell drinks PBR??????
Hipsters and idiots.
I do not drink but it is Union made.
Apparently there are quite a few people that drink PBR, as the 12 packs are always sold out at Gamecock BiLo, Publix on Forest and the BiLo in the old Piggly Wiggly on Forest. I am an IPA addict, but there really isn’t a better hot summer outside in the sun beer than an ice cold PBR. It didn’t win a blue ribbon for tasting like gorilla piss. I get a kick out of these die hard Budweiser drinkers that look down their noses at PBR, it’s apple to apples.
Peer Review is broken and many scientist will acknowledged it.
Excerpted from below:
So, one could summarize the situation like this: 1) A group of scientists, dependent on grants (just like I am, but I study something undebatable, tornadoes), generates a large amount of “peer-reviewed” (accepted by 2-4 other scientists, often their colleagues) research indicating that rapid global warming will occur due to human activity. 2) Some of the scientists’ dishonesty has been brought into public view. 3) The past data has flaws. 4) Computer models that predict rapid global warming are being fed bad data, and can’t be trusted (their predictions for recent climate are already wrong). 5) Doing anything significant to cool the earth even 1 degree would cost massive amounts of money and jobs, and threaten our national security.
http://www.alabamawx.com/?p=30733
Instead of a peer reviewed study, you give me a blog from Alabama. Enough Said.
Written by a PhD from UAH who’s had eleven peer review papers published. He’s explaining what’s wrong with the system and why there are very few peer reviewed papers that are anti-AGW.
He’s had 11 peer review papers about growing tomatoes. My father has published papers on horticulture too, but that doesn’t make him an expert on climate change.
It however makes him an expert on the peer review process.
The dishonesty of the peer review system in S.C. Colleges is frightening. I watched as one SOB in a certain department kept my mom from publishing. Eventually, he retired, 15 years later, and she was able to get both of her books published.
More information again excerpted from below.
Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.
One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.
Ms. Oreskes’s definition of consensus covered “man-made” but left out “dangerous”—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren’t substantiated in the papers.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/05/wsj-myth-of-climate-change-97-what-is.html
Make it six packs of Blue Moon and you’re on.
The sad thing is, “The War on Poor People” by giving them Higher Electric bills, will continue under this presidents watch.
Yep – it is all a conspiracy by Gore and Obama to raise electric bills!! LOL
No actually the agenda was Fossil fuels, now that we have an abundant natural gas, they still have to stick to their guns….As for the poor, they just get in the way of the agenda.
Actually..it is, just like it is to raise gas prices so people will drive less.
I guess the fracking people didn’t get the message.
Who drives on natural gas?
Buses, fedex, ups and the usps to name a few.
There are 142,000 natural gas powered cars out of 250 million total cars.
Well..that settles it then.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/are-we-underestimating-americas-fracking-boom-1401234486?tesla=y&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304811904579587673420436230.html
I’m not sure it’s a conspiracy. There is some climate change going on, but I think the effects are being played up to convince governments to pass pro-environmental legislation that otherwise wouldn’t be passed. I think the climate change scientists goal is laudable- less pollution- but, again, I just don’t think it’ll end up as bad as they’re predicting.
It’s nice to see a voice of reason floating on all this BS. Keep it up, we may win out yet.
You who are supporting Bill Connor for the U.S. senate are the “Voice of Reason?
Not conspiracy….Idiocy.
fuck yeah! i’m taking all my scientific advice from the political gossip blogger. what about evolution Fits?
A trillion metric tons a year into the atmosphere… eh! Terraforming… no big deal. Man is too small to fall.
Has anyone besides me noticed how quiet the media has been in the latest run up in gas prices ? When it happened under President Bush it was Bush, Cheney and Halliburton getting rich off “the poor”. I guess now it is just the market. Ain’t perspective funny ???? LOL
I think blaming Bush will just P!$$ people off…and it’s likely why they are trying to ignore it…
I calculated my family pays $30 more a week for gas and $100 more a month for utilities under Obama. And he is going to regulate coal use out of business….so it will push utility costs even higher…Not to mention how much my healthcare costs are going up already…And Obamacare is still not completely kicked in yet…
When you take into consideration how many families have lost jobs, and the decline in salaries, Obama has been as bad on the country as the Great Depression…
If we do not Punish the democrats SEVERELY for what they have done to the country…we may as well surrender to China or Putin…
Especially when its been said one million times.
In peacetime the president has little control over gas prices. Please get that through your head. The free market reigns. If prices go up we should not blame the president or congress. If they do down we should not give them any credit.
The exception happens when suddenly our military participates in the free market to a far greater degree. Going to war in afganistan and iraq dramatically increased our demand for fuels. Thus the free market responded with higher prices.
The idiot author doesn’t seem to understand Malenkovitch Cycles, or that there hasn’t been a pause. All of the warmest years on record have been in the last decade with 2012 being the hottest. And, those cycles in the past that drove climate change are not the cause of the current warming. Everything has been ruled out by NASA and other mj. science organizations. There is no doubt that greenhouse gases are the cause and to suggest otherwise at this point is ridiculous. Obviously the author hasn’t had any science courses on this subject, and therefore his opinion should be discounted.
My research indicates our planet is warming from the inside, not from the outside. The culprit is Gamma Rays not CO2. Earth is passing through the Galactic Plane. This explains ice caps melting from warmer land temps under the ice, major volcanic (magma) action around the world, and coral reefs dying from not warmer ocean temps but from warmer earth temps on the ocean floor. You can take this to the bank. Ain’t thinking for yourself grand?
No TV network reported on those fools who got stranded in Antarctic Ice this Winter and had to be saved by the Chinese. Who also got stuck, who were finally rescued by 2 other ships. One of which also got stuck in the ice; were all Global Warming supporters there to prove how much Antarctic Ice had melted. What a bunch of idiots. They claimed that the waters would all be wide open for them to pass. Not only did they get stuck but also 3 other ships near the North Pole who thought they had found a new East West Passage due to global warming forecasts.
The sad thing is that the Network News are all about spreading this lie. And absolutely refuse to telecast any different opinions even if they are founded in solid ice science.
The moral of the story is to: “Never accept a weather forecast from a carbon credit selling Global Warming LIAR!
The author completely misunderstands or at least mis-reports the point of the original scientific article. It was already known that the Antarctic ice sheet was melting until 9,000 years ago. This study finds they began that melting 20,000 years ago instead of 14,000 years ago, and that the melting was episodic rather than gradual. In any event, the new study does not in any way refute global warming or the current warming trend. Scientists do not dispute that natural processes currently contribute significantly to some aspects of the melting and destabilization of the Antarctic ice sheet. Contrary to denialist claims, natural and anthropogenic climate processes are not mutually exclusive. The existence of one, either now or in the past, does not in any way affect the factual validity of the other. The climate we observe is a product of both, but the current warming trend is due almost entirely to added CO2 emissions from society. That is not just an assertion, it has been thoroughly studied scientifically and that is the overwhelming conclusion of the research. I don’t think denialists realize that the heat energy (originally from solar irradiance) absorbed by CO2 has to go somewhere. It can’t just magically vanish. If they don’t think it’s causing global warming then where do they think it is magically disappearing to. The least they could do is propose something to explain how it is that all this extra energy being retained is somehow vanishing.
Greenhouse gas is a following indicator, not a cause. If you want to cut CO, & CO2, cut down all the pine trees – transpiration is a major producer of carbon gases and water. 30–40 kg ha–1 year–1 .. depending on the amount of nitrogen in the soil and the relative humidity, about half of that is Carbon from the sugar (carbon/oxygen/hydrogen) molecules that are split up during the process.
Also, CO2 magically disappears into the ocean as a natural cycle of evaporation & rain, which is a process of atmospheric pressure and static & potential electric reciprocity.
When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth’s orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 to rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase.
I’m not asking you where CO2 goes, I’m asking you to answer, as a denialist, where the extra energy retained by CO2 goes. It cannot simply vanish.
CO2 is most certainly measure in parts per million–currently 400ppm. If you like to express that in parts per trillion go ahead, but first multiply it by a million–400 million parts per trillion. And where did you get the idea that the greenhouse effect only works high in the atmosphere. Are you not aware that even without human emissions, CO2 has caused natural global warming in the past and CO2 and H2O together are what normally keep our planet at a comfy temperature for life. Without greenhouse gases earth would be a frigid, icy rock in space. This has been known for nearly 200 years now, going back to when Fourier discovered this in the 1820s.
That theory was disproven 30 years ago. Fourier was wrong. CO2 is a following indicator.
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere reduces the loss of heat to space and causes global warming. Pretty straightforward physics and beyond dispute.
“Straightforward physics” is not factored in by the deniers on this forum – as you can read from their many posts the major factor in their denial is that Al Gore and President Obama say that global warming is real. ODS trumps physics every time.
Do you even have slightest idea how much CO2 would be needed to actually trap warmth? You people think you know about this subject, but you just don’t. I reccommend any lecture by Joe Bastardi or Joe D’Aleo. You can find them at Weatherbell.com . You will go away and hide your head in shame from your ignorance, once you know the truth.
Yes, the CO? climate forcing is given by:
?F = 5.35 * ln(C/C?)
… where C? is the initial atmospheric concentration of CO?, C is the final concentration, and ?F is the climate forcing associated with that increase in W/m². So for example, doubling atmospheric CO? is a climate forcing of 5.35 * ln(2) = 3.7W/m². Fast feedback climate sensitivity is 0.75°C/W/m², so the expected warming from fast feedbacks at equilibrium is 2.8°C, with slow feedbacks more than doubling that –
Climate sensitivity including slow albedo feedback is 1.5°C/W/m² (6°C per doubling)
Climate sensitivity including slow albedo feedback & non-CO2 GHGs is 2°C/W/m² (8°C per doubling)
Climate sensitivity including all feedbacks between Holocene & ice-free state is ~2.4°C/W/m² (9.5°C per doubling).
Hansen & Sato 2011
It’s perhaps not surprising that meteorologists don’t always know about this stuff, as it’s ‘beyond their remit’ for simple weather forecasting.
And the formula does not work. Just Saturday, the NASA scientist in charge of the CO2 delineation admitted they don’t really know HOW MUCH CO2 there is.
It has worked. We have the evidence: Decades of global warming predictions proven correct by observations.
You are so transparent. You won’t look at the facts. Today, Dr. D’Aleo has set forward definitive evidence that the data sets from NASA have been changed, AGAIN, because their numbers didn’t fit their models. He is THE expert in the field. http://www.weatherbell.com/premium/joe-daleo/data-set-changes ….. and take your little ignoramus choirgirl with you.
Just for fun TBG will will *accept* your “straightforward, indisputable physics”. Now this warming…increases water evaporation and cloud formation. The white tops of the clouds reflect light and heat away from the EARTH…
Clouds cool the Earth by reflecting incoming sunlight. The tiny drops or ice particles in clouds scatter between 20 and 90 percent of the sunlight that strikes them, giving them their bright, white appearance. From space, clouds look bright whereas large bodies of water look dark. A cloud-free Earth would absorb nearly 20 percent more heat from the sun than the present Earth does. To be in radiation balance Earth would have to be warmer by about 12?C. Clouds cool the planet by reflecting sunlight back into space, much as they chill a summer’s day at the beach.
Clouds warm the Earth by absorbing infrared radiation emitted from the surface and reradiating it back down. The process traps heat like a blanket and slows the rate at which the surface can cool. The blanketing effect warms Earth’s surface by some 7?C.
Thus the net effect of clouds on the climate is to cool the surface by about 5?C, at least under the current global distribution of clouds. Clouds reflect about 50 W m-2 of solar radiation up into space, and radiate about 30 W m-2 down to the ground, so the net effect is 20 W m-2 cooling on average. This greatly exceeds the 4 W m-2 warming due to doubling the atmosphere?s carbon dioxide from 300 to 600 ppm, or the roughly 2 W m-2 cooling caused by aero
The increase in atmospheric water vapour amplifies global warming by approximately 100% – so for example, doubling atmospheric CO2 causes warming of approximately 1C by itself, and the water vapour feedback doubles that to approximately 2C. It’s known from palaeoclimate data that clouds and aerosols together add about 50% to the temperature change, so they are another positive feedback. Sea is considered the third major fast feedback. In total, all fast feedbacks together amplify the initial warming by a factor of around 3, as shown by both palaeoclimate and modern data.
Sooooooooo……
Your contention is that it was the ocean, various CO2, H2O vapor feedback loops, and ’80s hair bands copious use of aerosol sprays that caused your in-flight issue?
Nothing to do with proximity to the sun?
I have a sneaking suspicion that Icarus is not, as we say, “from here.” He gave himself away when he wrote “vapour.” Tee Hee.. He also writes like a priest, not a scientist.
Sat.., on that “is a following indicator”. That it has been such in the past is well known. However, currently CO2 is clearly a leading indicator. IF the current episode was indeed in line with the well-known data derived from the ice cores, then we should have seen a recent upswing in temperature preceding the current upswing in CO2. In other words, this time around something really different is happening than what the record shows.
No, it’s not, and never has been.
When I was serving in the US Army in Germany almost 50 years ago, all of the civilians I spoke to who had served in WWII said they had fought on the Eastern Front.
I suspect in 50 years, any of the surviving deniers commenting here today will deny that they had denied.
In 50 years we will be halfway to the next ice age.
The planet is out of energy balance by a large amount – i.e. more heat coming in from the sun than being radiated away to space – and straightforward physics tells us that the imbalance will persist until the oceans warm up enough to restore equilibrium, which will take millennia. Hence there is a great deal more warming ‘in the pipeline’ and we won’t be seeing an ice age for a very long time.
Those same German civilians – Hitler Liberals – probably told you, you only had 5 years before man destroyed the planet due to microwave ovens or VCRs, or some other new technology that made you throwback liberals $#!* in your pants w/ fear… while you ignored your belvoed USSR dangling a nuclear bomb over your head…
You were Full of $#!* when you fought for Hitler, and you’re more Full of S#t, now…carrying on the battle for Obama…
Where are all those “Silent Spring”, “Population Explosion”, “Ozone hole”, scientists of the past?
Answer: They are now climate change proponents.
The survival of the planet may very well depend on the public’s understanding and acceptance of scientific data. Based on the main post here and most of the comments, I would say that we are pretty much doomed.
“Ask the majority of climate scientists: Carbon pollution from dirty energy is the main cause of global warming.” http://clmtr.lt/c/HT20cd0cMJ
The average temperature of Earth will be, undeniably, 10°F hotter than it is, today.. in one billion years, due to the growth of the Sun’s diameter.. maybe. Some astronomers think that when the mass of the Sun spins off, causing the diameter to increase, the Earth will move a relative amount of distance away from the heat.
To put it in Zenspeak: The Earth wants to be cold. The Sun wants to be hot. God or Goldilocks is satisfied.
Climate Destruction is a canard religion, and those who believe in it are its Priests.
Hell, there is no such thing as global warming. These assholes think that they are above the natural cycle of earth. So fuck them they are out of their mind.