Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    8:24 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Thats it folks - Al Gore is all wet - we in for the ice age Back to Topics
flyboyUT

Champion Author
Utah

Posts:27,331
Points:1,407,420
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2013 1:19:22 PM

Shades of 1970 - here we go again.
.
.
>>>Better start investing in some warm clothes because German scientists are predicting that the Earth will cool over the next century.

German scientists found that two naturally occurring cycles will combine to lower global temperatures during the 21st century, eventually dropping to levels corresponding with the “little ice age” of 1870.

“Due to the de Vries cycle, the global temperature will drop until 2100 to a value corresponding to the ‘little ice age’ of 1870,” write German scientists Horst-Joachim Luedecke and Carl-Otto Weiss of the European Institute for Climate and Energy.

Researchers used historical temperature data and data from cave stalagmites to show a 200-year solar cycle, called the de Vries cycle.<<<

So we need to drill for more energy to keep us warm. Will anyone ever admit that trying to predict global weather patterns is futile.
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
AnotherOne
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:24,331
Points:649,170
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Aug 20, 2014 6:47:17 PM



Not scientific but seemingly more accurate than most meteorologists.

And way MORE accurate than the global warming lemmings.

FARMER'S ALMANAC PREDICTS A SUPER COLD WINTER

"Published Wednesday, the New Hampshire-based almanac predicts a "super-cold" winter in the eastern two-thirds of the country. The west will remain a little bit warmer than normal.

"Colder is just almost too familiar a term," Editor Janice Stillman said. "Think of it as a refriger-nation."

More bad news for those who can't stand snow: Most of the Northeast is expected to get more snowfall than normal, though it will be below normal in New England."

Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:22,821
Points:2,841,420
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Aug 20, 2014 1:12:28 PM

ministorage - "When I first realized climate science was the antithesis of the scientific method, that's when I stopped believing. "

For me it was the "settled science" line. Alarm bells went off in my head. Science, by definition, is never settled.
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:11,763
Points:1,058,455
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Aug 20, 2014 9:16:41 AM

Current NASA Worldview satellite photo...

No Northwest Passage This Year
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:11,763
Points:1,058,455
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Aug 20, 2014 6:31:03 AM

"Chapter 1 page 2, they were pushing AGW."

So very sad. When I first realized climate science was the antithesis of the scientific method, that's when I stopped believing.

If climate scientists were engineers, buildings and bridges would be collapsing all over the world. Why AGW is collapsing, and why it will continue to collapse.

[Edited by: ministorage at 8/20/2014 6:31:55 AM EST]
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,398
Points:328,250
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 3:02:22 PM

Funny story.
I was looking at an intro to physics book (ISBN 978-0-07-351220-4) and guess what.
Chapter 1 page 2, they were pushing AGW. Then by page 5 they were talking about the scientific method.
Guess if they went over scientific method first then people might ask too many questions....
Profile Pic
Hemond
Champion Author Providence

Posts:11,716
Points:170,845
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 2:33:59 AM

QUOTE ::::;Is Algore in Scotland?

Every place he goes to tout manmade global warming experiences some of the coldest weather in history!

So much for summer: Snow set to blast Scotland as forecasters warn of 'coldest August spell in a century' ::::::


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


In less than 2 weeks we close out August. As of yet not a single hot day for the summer of 2014. Not one. This is unprecedented as far as I can recall. Hottest day was 88, once, one day. There is clearly no global warming going on. What with the easy summer here and now the ice age in Scotland.

I'm uneasy though. Since the summer is uncannily cool, will the winter be brutally cold? Are we on the cusp of global cooling?





[Edited by: Hemond at 8/19/2014 2:34:52 AM EST]
Profile Pic
AnotherOne
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:24,331
Points:649,170
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2014 12:52:46 AM



Is Algore in Scotland?

Every place he goes to tout manmade global warming experiences some of the coldest weather in history!

ROTFL

So much for summer: Snow set to blast Scotland as forecasters warn of 'coldest August spell in a century'

"Bitter Arctic winds could plunge parts of Britain into the coldest spell of August weather for almost a century.
Thermometers are set to plummet as a stubborn band of low pressure drags air in from the north - with two weeks of wet, windy and cold weather on the horizon.
There is even a chance of snow and sleet over the mountains of Scotland as it dips to near freezing overnight.
Government figures show the last time it was this cold in August was in 1919 when the mercury rose no higher than 8.9C for four days in Yorkshire and Cumbria."

Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:72,927
Points:2,920,220
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Aug 15, 2014 5:04:45 PM

Noted climate scientist S. Fred Singer writes a very tidy summation:

Climate Science Does Not Support IPCC Conclusions

Singer addresses Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST), Sea Level Rise (SLR), Climate Sensitivity (CS). Regarding SLR, Singer concludes:
"In my opinion, there is nothing we can do about this natural rise, which will continue until the next Ice Age -- when sea level will drop as ice accumulates in the Polar Regions and on glaciers. Meanwhile, we should follow the Dutch example: relax and build dikes."
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,331
Points:1,407,420
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Aug 12, 2014 10:47:47 PM

Nice link that Helmond - It kind of puts things in perspective doesnt it.

Reminds me of when your ship is sinking and your drowning dont bother to dry your hands....
Profile Pic
Hemond
Champion Author Providence

Posts:11,716
Points:170,845
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Aug 12, 2014 10:41:25 PM

QUOTE :::::btc: " It is our contribution that makes the difference. "::::


The fallacy of this statement has been pointed out on this board how many times now? Human contribution to the greenhouse gas effect is insignificant. - So vanishingly small as to be nearly unmeasurable.

Link here

[Edited by: Hemond at 8/12/2014 10:42:05 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,816
Points:388,140
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 12, 2014 3:08:06 PM

WES03,

True, but also convinced human activity is contributing.

We are part of the ecosystem, thus what we do affects it.
Profile Pic
WES03
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:6,722
Points:1,669,190
Joined:Feb 2009
Message Posted: Aug 12, 2014 2:51:17 PM

SemiS - Which is a total straw man argument because nobody here has tried to say that global warming does NOT occur naturally.

Thus you would agree that it could be happening naturally today?
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,374
Points:1,766,115
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Aug 12, 2014 2:51:13 PM

btc: " It is our contribution that makes the difference. "


So by that logic if it's getting warmer naturally, that's no problem for the world, but if any of that warming is man made, or should I be honest and say capitalism made, then that specific tenth of a degree or whatever it might be, is the particular tenth of degree that will melt the glaciers, strand the polar bears on little chunks of ice, cause massive hurricanes for George Bush to be able to steer, and cause the homicide rate to go up in Chicago.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:22,166
Points:875,150
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Aug 12, 2014 2:09:56 PM

But, the natural warming of the climate has been sped up by the advent of madmade sources of greenhouse gases. It is our contribution that makes the difference.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,816
Points:388,140
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 12, 2014 10:58:12 AM

WES03: "But it does prove that global warming can occur naturally. "

Which is a total straw man argument because nobody here has tried to say that global warming does NOT occur naturally.
Profile Pic
WES03
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:6,722
Points:1,669,190
Joined:Feb 2009
Message Posted: Aug 12, 2014 9:43:46 AM

SemiS - --Which in no way proves that current warming is not.

But it does prove that global warming can occur naturally.
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:11,763
Points:1,058,455
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Aug 12, 2014 8:46:31 AM

Mark your calendars - on August 12, 2014 SemiSteve announces that the Holy Grail has finally been found.

SMH

Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:11,763
Points:1,058,455
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Aug 12, 2014 8:29:57 AM

Steve, that's just not true. CO2 is heavier than oxygen, and stays down near the surface. Secondly, three decades of radiosondes and satellite measurements have not ever found the projected hotspot at 10,000 feet over the tropics - excess heat continues escaping into space as it always has. That's been discussed plenty.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,816
Points:388,140
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 12, 2014 8:15:01 AM

One thing I noticed about the CO2 lag in the data, johnnyg, is that while the concentration measurements are done at sea level the greenhouse effect takes place far higher in the atmosphere. Has this incorrect sampling location been discussed?
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:7,829
Points:1,122,740
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Aug 11, 2014 6:54:00 PM

Steve >The notion that humans can't possibly destroy our own habitat was blown away a long time ago.<

No one is saying that we can't affect the environment. We can and do. But the question is, is Co2 the hazard we have been lead to believe it is? If you look at the data the answer is probably not.

Steve >Really, they only argue physics to protect their wallets. The money is their main concern. The habitat? Who cares about that. That doesn't make or cost them money.<

Al Gore is a prime example of this so is the board of the Sierra Club, Members of Greenpeace and the other environmental hypocrites, not to mention the green companies that are getting rich off the tax payer.
Profile Pic
Hemond
Champion Author Providence

Posts:11,716
Points:170,845
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Aug 11, 2014 5:46:39 PM

QUOTE ::::;Anecdotal evidence IS evidence. :::::


Anecdotal evidence is often the first clue that something is up. I'm sure everyone has noticed this is one of the coolest summers ever. A common remark heard is "It's been 70 degrees every day." or "Why haven't we had any dog days yet this summer?" Anecdotes are important as it gets people looking into things. Looking for an explanation.



What we are seeing with the global warming hypotheses is "empirical" evidence against it. Measurements this summer, indeed over nearly 2 decades are confirming the failure of the hypotheses . ie, temperatures measured in the ocean, by satellite and land based showing no warming. ministorage has linked up numerous data sets of empirical evidence discrediting global warming.

Given enough empirical data, a true scientist can come formulate a theory to explain the observed data. A 'law' comes about when the theory can predict future trends. This is the failure of the warmists, their computer models predict no such thing. The models are deeply flawed, they do not correlate to the observed data. The warming hypothesis needs to be trash canned as it is discredited science.
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:11,763
Points:1,058,455
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Aug 11, 2014 2:21:46 PM

The NBC article btc1 posted did not say nor imply the Arctic is "melting big time," nor did it utter a word about "man influenced climate change." Those are btc1's words. To the contrary, the article indicates that "big time" melting in the Arctic is not occurring as they had predicted.

If btc1 had actually read the article - thoroughly - then he should know Mark Serreze, head of NSIDC, said the latest models have now moved the goal post for ice-free Arctic summers all the way out to the middle of the century. We are all well-aware of the failed predictions - an ice-free Arctic from somewhere between 2010 and 2014 (everyone who follows this should be aware of the that). Serreze was also giving us a heads-up that other projections for an Ice Free Arctic from 2015 to 2018 would likely also fail to come to pass.)

So, in telling John Roach that "Several climate models suggest that the Arctic Ocean will be seasonally ice free by the middle of this century", Serreze insomuch was admitting that things are *not* going as had been previously predicted. If melting were actually going faster, Serreze would have simply said so. But he didn't. Not even close. Instead, he called off the alarm bells for an ice-free Arctic this year, pushed out those projections further into the future (~40 years further out into the future), and then he provided a new hypothesis for why melting *could* go faster in the future.

The story focuses on an assumption of increases in larger waves that "could accelerate the sea ice retreat." For the basis of these newest projections, Serreze used a rare summer storm phenomenon for 2012 as the basis. That's what the article said.

There hasn't been a storm like that since, yet Serreze predicted they'll be getting more frequent. At what point in the future should these rare storms be increasing Mark? He didn't say. But, apparently he thinks it should begin sometime before mid-century.

The article boils down to this: Serreze gave us more future predictions - based on anecdotal evidence from a single year one-off - that waves "could" get worse in the Arctic, assuming the Arctic continues on a melting course.

That is just enough weasel wording to keep some of their Apologist minions to keep believing, posting and calling skeptics "climate change deniers" and ignorantly throwing around phrases like "man-made evidence", when in fact there was nothing in the article that came close to making that claim.

Contrasting Serreze's predictions for the future, are the facts about the growing Arctic sea ice, "anecdotal" evidence that flies in the face of and do not support Serrreze's latest summations. He's been wrong in the past. How does that make him a credible source? Why should anyone believe what he says now, or in the future?

At any rate, what we DO know is that in this article, Serreze has indicated that the newest models have called off ice-free Arctic conditions for about 4 more decades.

[Edited by: ministorage at 8/11/2014 2:31:45 PM EST]
Profile Pic
AnotherOne
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:24,331
Points:649,170
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Aug 11, 2014 1:17:03 PM



SemiSteve, when you can explain what caused the warming 12,000 years ago, I might believe you have a CLUE of what is happening now.

But I won't hold my breath waiting for an explanation from you.

SMH

Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,816
Points:388,140
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 11, 2014 1:14:02 PM

WES03: "Arctic ice has been melting for 12,000 years. Central Park NYC was covered by 1/2 mile thick glaciers at that time. Here's a flash: none of that warming was caused by SUVs. "

--Which in no way proves that current warming is not.

The notion that humans can't possibly destroy our own habitat was blown away a long time ago.

It seems to be regressive to hear it cropping back up again now that so many are so afraid of the economic impacts of reconsidering our energy sourcing and use.

Physics doesn't care about money. Physics is going to do it's own thing regardless of economic impact. Climate change mitigation objectivists are solely fixated on one aspect: "How much is this going to cost me?", yet count many who profit heavily from the status quo on their side.

Really, they only argue physics to protect their wallets. The money is their main concern. The habitat? Who cares about that. That doesn't make or cost them money.

Or does it?
Profile Pic
WES03
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:6,722
Points:1,669,190
Joined:Feb 2009
Message Posted: Aug 11, 2014 12:04:03 PM

bct1 - Arctic ice has been melting for 12,000 years. Central Park NYC was covered by 1/2 mile thick glaciers at that time. Here's a flash: none of that warming was caused by SUVs.
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:11,763
Points:1,058,455
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Aug 11, 2014 8:02:05 AM

btc1: "You know, you can seek all the anecdotal evidence of climate change denial you want. Still the Arctic is melting big time. Scientific peer-reviewed studies agree. We are experiencing man influenced climate change."

Anecdotal evidence IS evidence.

Sea ice is above every year for the past 5 years. There is more sea ice in Arctic than any year since 2006. There is more sea ice than 2013, which had the most sea ice growth in one year of any single year in the entire satellite record. The Arctic has 56% sea ice growth in Arctic in past two years.

Evidence trumps peer-reviewed studies and consensuses. Evidence is what renders hypotheses valid or sends them to the scrap heap.

If you say the ice is melting when it's been growing, you just might be a climate denier.

[Edited by: ministorage at 8/11/2014 8:09:21 AM EST]
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:22,166
Points:875,150
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Aug 11, 2014 7:36:03 AM

You know, you can seek all the anecdotal evidence of climate change denial you want. Still the Arctic is melting big time. Scientific peer-reviewed studies agree. We are experiencing man influenced climate change.

The evidence is there and has been shown since 1978 from satellite study.


[Edited by: btc1 at 8/11/2014 7:39:11 AM EST]
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:11,763
Points:1,058,455
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Aug 11, 2014 6:41:09 AM

johnny, I think the important thing to note is that that report was written by the satellite agency NASA GISS itself, when that agency was run by James Hansen - who was sure that the next two decades would show precipitous warming (and which didn't occur).

NASA knew 24 years ago - and knows now - that satellite data is more accurate. Yet this century they've been weighting NOAA's problematic surface station data and extrapolating warming that doesn't exist.

The disconnect becomes glaringly apparent when Gistemp is overlaid on top of two agencies that are actually using the NASA satellite (RSS/UAH) for temperature data. The NCDC-weighted GISS data are so skewed-upward now (in blue) that the well-known 1998 Super El Nino has been virtually disappeared.

[Edited by: ministorage at 8/11/2014 6:42:47 AM EST]
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:7,829
Points:1,122,740
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Aug 11, 2014 1:15:30 AM

>>>the
report's authors said that their satel-
lite analysis of the upper atmosphere
is more accurate, and should be
adopted as the standard way to
monitor global temperature change."<<<

It will never happen because it doesn’t provide a path to control or power by people who want to get rich of the carbon tax and other so called green industries.
Profile Pic
jeskibuff
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:10,313
Points:1,927,110
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Aug 10, 2014 9:18:32 PM

ministorage said: "Coast Guard cutters are staying busy saving idiots from themselves who believed the lies and myriad failed predictions about an ice-free Arctic this summer."

Anyone want to wager when the next Globull Warming Research vessel will get stranded by ice floes, needing multi-national rescue teams like the Akademik Shokalskiy did?

[Edited by: jeskibuff at 8/10/2014 9:19:20 PM EST]
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:11,763
Points:1,058,455
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Aug 10, 2014 7:08:27 AM

mudtoe, what is most incriminating is that data from NASA's own satellite show temperatures 0.4C cooler than the surface station data. Guess which data NASA is publishing? The NOAA surface data - although NASA knows the satellite data are more accurate than the surface station data. In 1990, NASA was bragging about the accuracy of satellite data over surface station data (rightfully so) right before the global warming agenda took off:

"A report issued by the U.S.
space agency NASA concluded that
there has been no sign
that the greenhouse effect
increased global temperatures dur
ing the 1980s. Based on satellite
analysis of the atmosphere between
1,500 and 6,000 metres above sea
level, the report said that the study
found "a seemingly random pattern
of change from year to year. While
several government and university
meteorologists around the world
have concluded that average sur
face temperatures have increased
significantly in recent years, the
report's authors said that their satel-
lite analysis of the upper atmosphere
is more accurate, and should be
adopted as the standard way to
monitor global temperature change."

RSS and UAH publish temperature data from the NASA satellite. The much-more accurate satellite data show 2014 has been quite ordinary, and 0.4C below the hottest year of 1998. The 1998 Super El Nino is obvious.

Since their own satellite data don't produce the desired results, NASA is now ignoring it - NASA GISS is heavily-weighting surface data these days (although they are fully-aware of the problems with the surface data). Along with NOAA, it publishes 0.4C more warming since 1998 than the agencies that are publishing the satellite data. One of the most glaring casualties of this practice has been that in the NASA data, the heretofore well-known 1998 Super El Nino has been erased.

Overlaid, it becomes abundantly clear how upward-adjusted and diverging from its own satellite that the surface station data are.

NASA and NOAA have both been making moves towards claiming 2014 will be the hottest year ever - using the less-accurate surface temperature data. NOAA served the first volley in that direction last month.

[Edited by: ministorage at 8/10/2014 7:16:16 AM EST]
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,374
Points:1,766,115
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Aug 10, 2014 12:43:59 AM

That video was very interesting flyboy. When you think about it, it all makes sense. Lots of these weather stations were originally put in places that were convenient for people to go visit and gather the readings by hand. This means lots of them would have been in populated areas. As time progressed more and more of the populated areas transitioned to more and more urban landscape, more asphalt, more heat generating equipment, etc., which exerted a greater and greater influence on the temperatures recorded at these sites.

So in reality, this report of global warming could really be, not a measurement of climate change, but a measurement of the increase in urbanization over time.

This brings up another thought too. I wonder who decides where to put these things? Are university students and university meteorology professors being co-opted as cheap labor to help NOAA site these things? If so, what a perfect opportunity for people with an agenda to skew the data in the direction of their choosing by being the ones that decide on the specific location to put one of these things. I mean, the difference of a couple of dozen feet at the install site, which is entirely likely to be up to the people doing the install, could make a big difference in the readings.


mudtoe

[Edited by: mudtoe at 8/10/2014 12:45:02 AM EST]
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:11,763
Points:1,058,455
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Aug 9, 2014 10:22:04 PM

Fly, that's incriminating stuff. I watched the ICCC speeches that week, including Anthony's. His work with the stations project was one of the first things I learned about early on in my process of disillusionment. He and a team of volunteers caught them red handed - all across this nation, from sea to shining sea. NOAA closed stations - some for good, and moved others - as a result of Watts' sleuthing. Although NCDC admitted to the poor placements that Watts et al. found, the faith-based CO2-warming apologists still love to slime him while ignoring these inconvenient facts.

------------
Speaking of inconvenient facts, it's summer in the Arctic. There are ~8.5 million square kilometers of sea ice in the Arctic, the Northeast Passage appears to be open, but the Northwest passage is still choked with ice.

Coast Guard cutters are staying busy saving idiots from themselves who believed the lies and myriad failed predictions about an ice-free Arctic this summer. (People really honestly believe the 'ice caps are melting' propaganda.)

Four weeks left for 8+ million square kilometers of ice is supposed to go "poof" - (Four weeks to go before winter build-out begins). Unless something drastic changes over this next month, this summer is shaping up to be close to the largest amount of multi-year ice sticking around for winter in a decade.

How is sea ice doing globaly? Global sea ice is above normal now and has been for most of the past year

[Edited by: ministorage at 8/9/2014 10:31:44 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,331
Points:1,407,420
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Aug 9, 2014 4:33:16 PM

Watch the video - the experts at NOAA are lying ----- again
.
.
When you put your "official" temp stations in places like parking lots and next to heat sources like AC heat exhausts - guess what - BINGO you get glowbull warming.......
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:11,763
Points:1,058,455
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Aug 8, 2014 9:56:08 PM

Atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature since 1958.

In the 1960s and 1970s, the earth was cooling. There was no correlation between temperature and CO2 direction, but the global temperature was concurrent with the cool solar cycle 20.

The next two solar cycles were two of the five hottest solar cycles in the past 400 years. Solar cycle 21 began in June 1976. Coincident with Solar Cycles 21 and 22, that period saw the sharpest rise in global temps since the spike in the first half of the 20th century. This was the only period of time during the past 56 years that global temperatures matched CO2 rise.

Solar cycle 23 was cooler than SC21 and SC22. Coincident with that, the global temperature stopped rising -another period when global temperatures had zero correlation to the rise in CO2.

The first graph above shows over the past decade the earth has been cooling off. That phenomenon is coincident with a an even cooler solar cycle 24, which is now on its downhill side for the next 5-6 years. Again, zero correlation with CO2 direction. Solar scientists are projecting an even weaker Solar Cycle 25.

95% of the CO2-based AGW models have already failed. CO2 hasn't been controlling temperatures over the past 56 years, and there is no reason to expect that it will do so in the future.

AGW is a dead hypothesis. AGW is a faith-based initiative.

[Edited by: ministorage at 8/8/2014 10:01:42 PM EST]
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:11,763
Points:1,058,455
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Aug 8, 2014 8:50:00 PM

Steve, I already know you don't give a whit about the science.

You proved that long ago, when you claimed the above study was done by shills for big oil.
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:11,763
Points:1,058,455
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Aug 8, 2014 8:46:53 PM

I see SemiSteve has taken his ridicule of others, usually confined to the Cafe', where he regularly talks about and slams other posters whilst simultaneously talking about how much he desires "respect" on these threads, and posts this sarcastic tripe here:

"Yes, isn't it irksome that these people claim to be scientists just because they've gone to top notch schools and done all the work and gotten the grades? We Fox news devotees know that real science comes from the bible. We know that the Earth and the heavens were created in 6 days by an amazing super-powerful all-knowing magic man. So we find it all very fanciful to hear these silly tales about billion's of years of rock 'telling us stories'.

Yeah, right. Like, where do you even plug the earphones into a rock?"

Got it.

[Edited by: ministorage at 8/8/2014 8:48:06 PM EST]
Profile Pic
ColoradoPapa
Champion Author Colorado

Posts:10,195
Points:940,820
Joined:May 2010
Message Posted: Aug 8, 2014 8:28:33 PM

Who says we have global warming. Al Gore is just trying to make more money off his scam.

Read this.

[Edited by: ColoradoPapa at 8/8/2014 8:29:01 PM EST]
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,398
Points:328,250
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Aug 8, 2014 7:05:38 PM

"Yes, isn't it irksome that these people claim to be scientists just because they've gone to top notch schools and done all the work and gotten the grades? We Fox news devotees know that real science comes from the bible. We know that the Earth and the heavens were created in 6 days by an amazing super-powerful all-knowing magic man. So we find it all very fanciful to hear these silly tales about billion's of years of rock 'telling us stories'. "

Who ordered the straw man, because SS delivered it.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,331
Points:1,407,420
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Aug 8, 2014 6:41:23 PM

What a hoot it is.....
.
.
Eery once in a while a cartoon says it all in a small space. Reality bytes again it seems......
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,453
Points:58,495
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Aug 8, 2014 4:19:41 PM

"Far better to let child and slave-like labor do it there."

Yeah, we should pay people $15 an hour to do that work here, and the kids in India can go back to scrounging in the garbage dump for rotten food. Why are those kids and adults willing to do that work? Because it's better than the alternative.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,374
Points:1,766,115
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Aug 8, 2014 3:00:57 PM

SS: "And we all know how much better our lives are, and will continue to be for all eternity, because of dirty energy. "


Feel free to move to Kenya and join Obama's half brother in a dirt hut. Dirty cheap energy is far better than expensive inadequate liberal agenda energy, or no energy at all.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:18,658
Points:813,300
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Aug 8, 2014 2:56:56 PM

HotRod,
We've been exporting our "dirty jobs" for years to third world countries so we can claim to be "clean". Far better to let child and slave-like labor do it there. Look at why our ships are dismantled in India by kids after being beached.

link to photos
Profile Pic
theTower
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:15,006
Points:523,735
Joined:Jun 2007
Message Posted: Aug 8, 2014 2:54:51 PM

"We know that the Earth and the heavens were created in 6 days by an amazing super-powerful all-knowing magic man."

God is not a man. God is not a woman. God just is.
Oh, so I guess you are no longer the changed poster you were claiming to be just yesterday huh.
Not surprising.
And those of us that have been reading your tripe over the years anyway knows just what kind of poster you are,



[Edited by: theTower at 8/8/2014 2:57:22 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,816
Points:388,140
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 8, 2014 2:47:38 PM

" this junk science. "

Yes, isn't it irksome that these people claim to be scientists just because they've gone to top notch schools and done all the work and gotten the grades? We Fox news devotees know that real science comes from the bible. We know that the Earth and the heavens were created in 6 days by an amazing super-powerful all-knowing magic man. So we find it all very fanciful to hear these silly tales about billion's of years of rock 'telling us stories'.

Yeah, right. Like, where do you even plug the earphones into a rock?

[Edited by: SemiSteve at 8/8/2014 2:48:00 PM EST]
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,453
Points:58,495
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Aug 8, 2014 1:28:39 PM

"And we all know how much better our lives are...because of dirty energy."

Yeah, as opposed to the really clean gasoline refining that they do in Mexico and other third world nations because of the regulations here that make it too expensive to expand the refining capacity domestically. So because we want sparkling clean air, 15% of our gasoline is produced in those sparkling clean refineries in Mexico instead of the dirty, unregulated ones here. Something about that seems backwards, doesn't it?
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,453
Points:58,495
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Aug 8, 2014 1:21:31 PM

"Like building bombs, missiles and rockets to destroy innocent women and children in schools and hospitals."

Well, that's what happens when you succeed in making domestic energy production uneconomical and we end up buying oil from the middle east, where they take their 1000% profit to give to the families of suicide bombers and to buy weapons for Islamists to attack us and Israel.
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,453
Points:58,495
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Aug 8, 2014 1:14:10 PM

Would you like some cheese to go with that whine, Semisteve?

You willingly contributed to the success of the "oil billionaires", (aka Saudi Sheiks) as much as the rest of us. Of course, we were taxed to pay the so-called scientists doing climate research, but the part that really puts a dent in the wallet is the regulations put in place based on this junk science.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,816
Points:388,140
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 8, 2014 12:12:58 PM

"I say a prayer daily that the oil billionaires keep up what they do."

--Yes, let us all pray that every bit of trapped carbon is freed from the confines underground where it can't hurt anybody so it can be used to do all the civilized things we know are right. Like building bombs, missiles and rockets to destroy innocent women and children in schools and hospitals.

Why, we should start a whole new religion worshiping the wonders of fossil fuels. We conservatives know that the humans who walked side by side with dinosaurs were too backward to worship much of anything other than the aliens which visited the planet way back then so it's up to us to decide what modern devotees should hold as high and mighty.

And we all know how much better our lives are, and will continue to be for all eternity, because of dirty energy.
Profile Pic
Hemond
Champion Author Providence

Posts:11,716
Points:170,845
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Aug 8, 2014 11:43:17 AM

QUOTE ::::The difference is that the "oil billionaires" got that way by producing a product that the world can't do without and that people were willing to pay for of their own free will:::


I say a prayer daily that the oil billionaires keep up what they do. They deserve every cent and more. I am thankful for the comfortable life they provide to me. I do not want to take up subsistance farming and go back to using a horse and buggy. I do not want to go back to chopping wood for heat. I prefer to travel in a 747, not in a steam locomotive.

I'm sure progressive liberals enjoy their comfortable life too. I'll wager the typical progressive liberal prefers going shopping for organic persimmons at Whole Food Market in his 18mpg Jaguar/BMW/Mercedes. I'll wager the typical progressive liberal would be loathe to give that lifestyle up - a lifetsyle underwritten by oil billionaires.

Post a reply Back to Topics